Implementing the centiloid transformation for 11C-PiB and β-amyloid 18F-PET tracers using CapAIBL
Implementing the centiloid transformation for 11C-PiB and β-amyloid 18F-PET tracers using CapAIBL
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.08.044
复制
发表时间：
2018-12-01
期刊：
影响因子：
5.7
通讯作者：
Rowe, Christopher C.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bourgeat, Pierrick;Dore, Vincent;Rowe, Christopher C.
最近提出了centiloid量表，为β-淀粉样蛋白PET图像的量化提供标准框架，从而可以在标准量表上表达淀粉样蛋白负荷。虽然该框架规定 SPM8 作为 PET 定量的标准分析方法，但可以校准非标准方法以产生质心值。我们之前开发了仅 PET 定量：CapAIBL。在本研究中，我们展示了如何将 CapAIBL 校准到百分位数。方法：使用标准方法和 CapAIBL 分析 C-11-PiB、F-18-NAV4694、F-18-Florbetaben、F-18-Frudemetamol 和 F-18-Florbetapir 的校准图像。使用这些图像，两种方法都被校准到质心尺度。将使用 CapAIBL 计算的质心值与使用标准方法计算的值进行比较。对于每个示踪剂，使用 AIBL 研究的独立数据集进行单独验证。结果：使用校准图像，使用 CapAIBL 计算的质心值与使用标准方法计算的质心值之间存在非常强的一致性，且所有示踪剂的 R-2 > 0.97 的偏差很小。使用 AIBL 的图像，所有示踪剂的一致性也很高，R-2 > 0.96。在此数据集中，PiB 中使用 CapAIBL 计算的 Centiloid 值小幅低估，小于 0.8%，Florbetapir 小幅高估 1.3%，Flutemetamol 小幅高估 0.8%。 NAV 图像中高估了 8%，Florbetaben 图像中低估了 14%。然而，其中一些差异可以通过校准扫描和 AIBL 中使用的扫描仪使用不同的扫描仪来解释。结论：仅 PET 定量方法 CapAIBL 可以产生可靠的质心值。在 F-18-NAV4694 和 F-18-Florbetaben 的 AIBL 数据集中观察到的偏差可能表明使用不同的扫描仪或重建方法可能需要针对扫描仪进行调整。
The centiloid scale was recently proposed to provide a standard framework for the quantification of beta-amyloid PET images, so that amyloid burden can be expressed on a standard scale. While the framework prescribes SPM8 as the standard analysis method for PET quantification, non-standard methods can be calibrated to produce centiloid values. We have previously developed a PET-only quantification: CapAIBL. In this study, we show how CapAIBL can be calibrated to the centiloid scale.Methods: Calibration images for C-11-PiB, F-18-NAV4694, F-18-Florbetaben, F-18-Flutemetamol and F-18-Florbetapir were analysed using the standard method and CapAIBL. Using these images, both methods were calibrated to the centiloid scale. Centiloid values computed using CapAIBL were compared to those computed using standard method. For each tracer, a separate validation was performed using an independent dataset from the AIBL study. Results: Using the calibration images, there was a very strong agreement, and very little bias between the centiloid values computed using CapAIBL and those computed using the standard method with R-2 > 0.97 across all tracers. Using images from AIBL, the agreement was also high with R-2 > 0.96 across all tracers. In this dataset, there was a small underestimation of the centiloid values computed using CapAIBL of less than 0.8% in PiB, and a small overestimation of 1.3% in Florbetapir, and 0.8% in Flutemetamol. There was a larger overestimation of 8% in NAV images, and 14% underestimation in Florbetaben images. However, some of these differences could be explained by the use of different scanners between the calibration scans and the ones used in AIBL.Conclusion: The PET-only quantification method, CapAIBL, can produce reliable centiloid values. The bias observed in the AIBL dataset for F-18-NAV4694 and F-18-Florbetaben may indicate that using different scanners or reconstruction methods might require scanner-specific adjustments.