Comparison of [18F]Flutemetamol and [11C]Pittsburgh Compound-B in cognitively normal young, cognitively normal elderly, and Alzheimer's disease dementia individuals

Background: Understanding the variation in uptake between different amyloid PET tracers is important to appropriately interpret data using different amyloid tracers. Therefore, we compared the uptake differences in [18F]Flutemetamol (FMT) and [11C]PiB (PiB) PET in the same people. Methods: Structura...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Val J. Lowe, Emily Lundt, David Knopman, Matthew L. Senjem, Jeffrey L. Gunter, Christopher G. Schwarz, Bradley J. Kemp, Clifford R. Jack, Jr, Ronald C. Petersen
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2017-01-01
Series:NeuroImage: Clinical
Online Access:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213158217302024
_version_ 1811283708246753280
author Val J. Lowe
Emily Lundt
David Knopman
Matthew L. Senjem
Jeffrey L. Gunter
Christopher G. Schwarz
Bradley J. Kemp
Clifford R. Jack, Jr
Ronald C. Petersen
author_facet Val J. Lowe
Emily Lundt
David Knopman
Matthew L. Senjem
Jeffrey L. Gunter
Christopher G. Schwarz
Bradley J. Kemp
Clifford R. Jack, Jr
Ronald C. Petersen
author_sort Val J. Lowe
collection DOAJ
description Background: Understanding the variation in uptake between different amyloid PET tracers is important to appropriately interpret data using different amyloid tracers. Therefore, we compared the uptake differences in [18F]Flutemetamol (FMT) and [11C]PiB (PiB) PET in the same people. Methods: Structural MRI, FMT PET and PiB PET were each performed in 30 young cognitively normal (yCN), 31 elderly cognitively normal (eCN) and 21 Alzheimer's disease dementia (AD) participants. PiB and FMT images for each participant were compared quantitatively using voxel- and region-based analyses. Region of interest (ROI) analyses included comparisons of grey matter (GM) regions as well as white matter (WM) regions. Regional comparisons of each tracer between different groups and comparisons of the two modalities within the different groups were performed. To compare mean SUVr between modalities, and between diagnostic groups, we used paired t-tests and Student's t-test, respectively. We also compared the ability of the two tracers to discriminate between diagnostic groups using AUROC estimates. The effect of using different normalization regions on SUVr values was also evaluated. Results: Both FMT and PiB showed greater uptake throughout GM structures in AD vs. eCN or yCN. In all dual-modality group comparisons (FMT vs. PiB in yCN, eCN, and AD), greater WM uptake was seen with FMT vs. PiB. In yCN and eCN greater diffuse GM uptake was seen with FMT vs. PiB. When comparing yCN to eCN within each tracer, greater WM uptake was seen in eCN vs yCN. Conclusions: Flutemetamol and PiB show similar topographical GM uptake in AD and CN participants and the tracers show comparable group discrimination. Greater WM accumulation with FMT suggests that quantitative differences vs. PiB will be apparent when using WM or GM as a reference region. Both imaging tracers demonstrate increased WM uptake in older people. These findings suggest that using different amyloid tracers or different methods of analyses in serial brain imaging in an individual may result in artifactual amyloid change measurements. Clinical use of several amyloid tracers in the same patient will have challenges that need to be carefully considered.
first_indexed 2024-04-13T02:17:32Z
format Article
id doaj.art-e5c88ccb21fa47888cdacd066ce9ab0b
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2213-1582
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-13T02:17:32Z
publishDate 2017-01-01
publisher Elsevier
record_format Article
series NeuroImage: Clinical
spelling doaj.art-e5c88ccb21fa47888cdacd066ce9ab0b2022-12-22T03:07:07ZengElsevierNeuroImage: Clinical2213-15822017-01-0116295302Comparison of [18F]Flutemetamol and [11C]Pittsburgh Compound-B in cognitively normal young, cognitively normal elderly, and Alzheimer's disease dementia individualsVal J. Lowe0Emily Lundt1David Knopman2Matthew L. Senjem3Jeffrey L. Gunter4Christopher G. Schwarz5Bradley J. Kemp6Clifford R. Jack, Jr7Ronald C. Petersen8Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States; Corresponding author at: Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, United States.Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United StatesDepartment of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United StatesDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States; Department of Information Technology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United StatesDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United StatesDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United StatesDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United StatesDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United StatesDepartment of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United StatesBackground: Understanding the variation in uptake between different amyloid PET tracers is important to appropriately interpret data using different amyloid tracers. Therefore, we compared the uptake differences in [18F]Flutemetamol (FMT) and [11C]PiB (PiB) PET in the same people. Methods: Structural MRI, FMT PET and PiB PET were each performed in 30 young cognitively normal (yCN), 31 elderly cognitively normal (eCN) and 21 Alzheimer's disease dementia (AD) participants. PiB and FMT images for each participant were compared quantitatively using voxel- and region-based analyses. Region of interest (ROI) analyses included comparisons of grey matter (GM) regions as well as white matter (WM) regions. Regional comparisons of each tracer between different groups and comparisons of the two modalities within the different groups were performed. To compare mean SUVr between modalities, and between diagnostic groups, we used paired t-tests and Student's t-test, respectively. We also compared the ability of the two tracers to discriminate between diagnostic groups using AUROC estimates. The effect of using different normalization regions on SUVr values was also evaluated. Results: Both FMT and PiB showed greater uptake throughout GM structures in AD vs. eCN or yCN. In all dual-modality group comparisons (FMT vs. PiB in yCN, eCN, and AD), greater WM uptake was seen with FMT vs. PiB. In yCN and eCN greater diffuse GM uptake was seen with FMT vs. PiB. When comparing yCN to eCN within each tracer, greater WM uptake was seen in eCN vs yCN. Conclusions: Flutemetamol and PiB show similar topographical GM uptake in AD and CN participants and the tracers show comparable group discrimination. Greater WM accumulation with FMT suggests that quantitative differences vs. PiB will be apparent when using WM or GM as a reference region. Both imaging tracers demonstrate increased WM uptake in older people. These findings suggest that using different amyloid tracers or different methods of analyses in serial brain imaging in an individual may result in artifactual amyloid change measurements. Clinical use of several amyloid tracers in the same patient will have challenges that need to be carefully considered.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213158217302024
spellingShingle Val J. Lowe
Emily Lundt
David Knopman
Matthew L. Senjem
Jeffrey L. Gunter
Christopher G. Schwarz
Bradley J. Kemp
Clifford R. Jack, Jr
Ronald C. Petersen
Comparison of [18F]Flutemetamol and [11C]Pittsburgh Compound-B in cognitively normal young, cognitively normal elderly, and Alzheimer's disease dementia individuals
NeuroImage: Clinical
title Comparison of [18F]Flutemetamol and [11C]Pittsburgh Compound-B in cognitively normal young, cognitively normal elderly, and Alzheimer's disease dementia individuals
title_full Comparison of [18F]Flutemetamol and [11C]Pittsburgh Compound-B in cognitively normal young, cognitively normal elderly, and Alzheimer's disease dementia individuals
title_fullStr Comparison of [18F]Flutemetamol and [11C]Pittsburgh Compound-B in cognitively normal young, cognitively normal elderly, and Alzheimer's disease dementia individuals
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of [18F]Flutemetamol and [11C]Pittsburgh Compound-B in cognitively normal young, cognitively normal elderly, and Alzheimer's disease dementia individuals
title_short Comparison of [18F]Flutemetamol and [11C]Pittsburgh Compound-B in cognitively normal young, cognitively normal elderly, and Alzheimer's disease dementia individuals
title_sort comparison of 18f flutemetamol and 11c pittsburgh compound b in cognitively normal young cognitively normal elderly and alzheimer s disease dementia individuals
url http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213158217302024
work_keys_str_mv AT valjlowe comparisonof18fflutemetamoland11cpittsburghcompoundbincognitivelynormalyoungcognitivelynormalelderlyandalzheimersdiseasedementiaindividuals
AT emilylundt comparisonof18fflutemetamoland11cpittsburghcompoundbincognitivelynormalyoungcognitivelynormalelderlyandalzheimersdiseasedementiaindividuals
AT davidknopman comparisonof18fflutemetamoland11cpittsburghcompoundbincognitivelynormalyoungcognitivelynormalelderlyandalzheimersdiseasedementiaindividuals
AT matthewlsenjem comparisonof18fflutemetamoland11cpittsburghcompoundbincognitivelynormalyoungcognitivelynormalelderlyandalzheimersdiseasedementiaindividuals
AT jeffreylgunter comparisonof18fflutemetamoland11cpittsburghcompoundbincognitivelynormalyoungcognitivelynormalelderlyandalzheimersdiseasedementiaindividuals
AT christophergschwarz comparisonof18fflutemetamoland11cpittsburghcompoundbincognitivelynormalyoungcognitivelynormalelderlyandalzheimersdiseasedementiaindividuals
AT bradleyjkemp comparisonof18fflutemetamoland11cpittsburghcompoundbincognitivelynormalyoungcognitivelynormalelderlyandalzheimersdiseasedementiaindividuals
AT cliffordrjackjr comparisonof18fflutemetamoland11cpittsburghcompoundbincognitivelynormalyoungcognitivelynormalelderlyandalzheimersdiseasedementiaindividuals
AT ronaldcpetersen comparisonof18fflutemetamoland11cpittsburghcompoundbincognitivelynormalyoungcognitivelynormalelderlyandalzheimersdiseasedementiaindividuals