Comparison of Pittsburgh compound B and florbetapir in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies
Comparison of Pittsburgh compound B and florbetapir in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.dadm.2018.12.008
复制
发表时间：
2019-12-01
影响因子：
5.3
通讯作者：
Benzinger, Tammie L. S.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Su, Yi;Flores, Shaney;Benzinger, Tammie L. S.
在体内定量测量脑淀粉样蛋白负荷是重要的研究和临床目的。然而，多种成像示踪剂的存在对这种测量的解释提出了挑战。本研究提出了一个直接比较匹兹堡化合物B为基础的和florbetapir为基础的淀粉样蛋白成像在相同的参与者从两个独立的cohort using a crossover design.Methods匹兹堡化合物B和florbetapir淀粉样蛋白PET成像数据从三个不同的cohort进行了分析，使用以前建立的管道，以获得全球淀粉样蛋白的负担测量。将这些测量值转换为Centiloid量表，以便在两种示踪剂之间进行公平比较。两个示踪剂的平均值和个体间变异性进行了比较，使用多变量线性模型的横截面和longitudinal.ResultsGlobal淀粉样蛋白的负担测量使用这两个示踪剂在两个队列中有很强的相关性。然而，当使用florbetapir作为成像示踪剂时，观察到更高的变异性。这种变化可能部分由白色物质信号引起，因为部分体积校正降低了变化并改善了两种示踪剂之间的相关性。使用这两种示踪剂测量的淀粉样蛋白负荷被发现与临床和心理测量相关。还在类似但独立的队列中对两种示踪剂进行了纵向比较，这些队列的基线淀粉样蛋白负荷被认为升高（即，淀粉样蛋白阳性）。没有显着差异被检测到在平均年化率的变化测量这两个tracer.Discussion虽然淀粉样蛋白的负担测量是非常相似的，使用这两个示踪剂的预期，差异是可观察到的，即使转换成Centiloid规模。进一步的研究是必要的，以确定最佳的策略，以协调使用不同的示踪剂获得的淀粉样蛋白成像数据。
Introduction Quantitative in vivo measurement of brain amyloid burden is important for both research and clinical purposes. However, the existence of multiple imaging tracers presents challenges to the interpretation of such measurements. This study presents a direct comparison of Pittsburgh compound B-based and florbetapir-based amyloid imaging in the same participants from two independent cohorts using a crossover design.Methods Pittsburgh compound B and florbetapir amyloid PET imaging data from three different cohorts were analyzed using previously established pipelines to obtain global amyloid burden measurements. These measurements were converted to the Centiloid scale to allow fair comparison between the two tracers. The mean and inter-individual variability of the two tracers were compared using multivariate linear models both cross-sectionally and longitudinally.ResultsGlobal amyloid burden measured using the two tracers were strongly correlated in both cohorts. However, higher variability was observed when florbetapir was used as the imaging tracer. The variability may be partially caused by white matter signal as partial volume correction reduces the variability and improves the correlations between the two tracers. Amyloid burden measured using both tracers was found to be in association with clinical and psychometric measurements. Longitudinal comparison of the two tracers was also performed in similar but separate cohorts whose baseline amyloid load was considered elevated (i.e., amyloid positive). No significant difference was detected in the average annualized rate of change measurements made with these two tracers.Discussion Although the amyloid burden measurements were quite similar using these two tracers as expected, difference was observable even after conversion into the Centiloid scale. Further investigation is warranted to identify optimal strategies to harmonize amyloid imaging data acquired using different tracers.