Comparison of Pittsburgh compound B and florbetapir in crossâ sectional and longitudinal studies
Su, Yi; Flores, Shaney; Wang, Guoqiao; Hornbeck, Russ C.; Speidel, Benjamin; Joseph‐mathurin, Nelly; Vlassenko, Andrei G.; Gordon, Brian A.; Koeppe, Robert A.; Klunk, William E.; Jack, Clifford R.; Farlow, Martin R.; Salloway, Stephen; Snider, Barbara J.; Berman, Sarah B.; Roberson, Erik D.; Brosch, Jared; Jimenez‐velazques, Ivonne; Dyck, Christopher H.; Galasko, Douglas; Yuan, Shauna H.; Jayadev, Suman; Honig, Lawrence S.; Gauthier, Serge; Hsiung, Ging‐yuek R.; Masellis, Mario; Brooks, William S.; Fulham, Michael; Clarnette, Roger; Masters, Colin L.; Wallon, David; Hannequin, Didier; Dubois, Bruno; Pariente, Jeremie; Sanchez‐valle, Raquel; Mummery, Catherine; Ringman, John M.; Bottlaender, Michel; Klein, Gregory; Milosavljevic‐ristic, Smiljana; McDade, Eric; Xiong, Chengjie; Morris, John C.; Bateman, Randall J.; Benzinger, Tammie L.S.
2019-12
Citation
Su, Yi; Flores, Shaney; Wang, Guoqiao; Hornbeck, Russ C.; Speidel, Benjamin; Joseph‐mathurin, Nelly ; Vlassenko, Andrei G.; Gordon, Brian A.; Koeppe, Robert A.; Klunk, William E.; Jack, Clifford R.; Farlow, Martin R.; Salloway, Stephen; Snider, Barbara J.; Berman, Sarah B.; Roberson, Erik D.; Brosch, Jared; Jimenez‐velazques, Ivonne ; Dyck, Christopher H.; Galasko, Douglas; Yuan, Shauna H.; Jayadev, Suman; Honig, Lawrence S.; Gauthier, Serge; Hsiung, Ging‐yuek R. ; Masellis, Mario; Brooks, William S.; Fulham, Michael; Clarnette, Roger; Masters, Colin L.; Wallon, David; Hannequin, Didier; Dubois, Bruno; Pariente, Jeremie; Sanchez‐valle, Raquel ; Mummery, Catherine; Ringman, John M.; Bottlaender, Michel; Klein, Gregory; Milosavljevic‐ristic, Smiljana ; McDade, Eric; Xiong, Chengjie; Morris, John C.; Bateman, Randall J.; Benzinger, Tammie L.S. (2019). "Comparison of Pittsburgh compound B and florbetapir in crossâ sectional and longitudinal studies." Alzheimer’s & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring 11(C): 180-190.
Abstract
IntroductionQuantitative 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 Bâ based and florbetapirâ based amyloid imaging in the same participants from two independent cohorts using a crossover design.MethodsPittsburgh 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 interâ individual variability of the two tracers were compared using multivariate linear models both crossâ 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.DiscussionAlthough 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.Publisher
Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
ISSN
2352-8729 2352-8729
Other DOIs
Types
Article
Metadata
Show full item recordCollections
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.