Cargando…

Test–retest repeatability of [(18)F]Flortaucipir PET in Alzheimer’s disease and cognitively normal individuals

The aim of this study was to investigate the test–retest (TRT) repeatability of various parametric quantification methods for [(18)F]Flortaucipir positron emission tomography (PET). We included eight subjects with dementia or mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer’s disease and six cognitively n...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Timmers, Tessa, Ossenkoppele, Rik, Visser, Denise, Tuncel, Hayel, Wolters, Emma E, Verfaillie, Sander CJ, van der Flier, Wiesje M, Boellaard, Ronald, Golla, Sandeep SV, van Berckel, Bart NM
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7705644/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31575335
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0271678X19879226
Descripción
Sumario:The aim of this study was to investigate the test–retest (TRT) repeatability of various parametric quantification methods for [(18)F]Flortaucipir positron emission tomography (PET). We included eight subjects with dementia or mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer’s disease and six cognitively normal subjects. All underwent two 130-min dynamic [(18)F]Flortaucipir PET scans within 3 ± 1 weeks. Data were analyzed using reference region models receptor parametric mapping (RPM), simplified reference tissue method 2 (SRTM2) and reference logan (RLogan), as well as standardized uptake value ratios (SUVr, time intervals 40–60, 80–100 and 110–130 min post-injection) with cerebellar gray matter as reference region. We obtained distribution volume ratio or SUVr, first for all brain regions and then in three tau-specific regions-of-interest (ROIs). TRT repeatability (%) was defined as |retest–test|/(average (test + retest)) × 100. For all methods and across ROIs, TRT repeatability ranged from (median (IQR)) 0.84% (0.68–2.15) to 6.84% (2.99–11.50). TRT repeatability was good for all reference methods used, although semi-quantitative models (i.e. SUVr) performed marginally worse than quantitative models, for instance TRT repeatability of RPM: 1.98% (0.78–3.58) vs. SUVr(80–100): 3.05% (1.28–5.52), p < 0.001. Furthermore, for SUVr(80–100) and SUVr(110–130), with higher average SUVr, more variation was observed. In conclusion, while TRT repeatability was good for all models used, quantitative methods performed slightly better than semi-quantitative methods.