Dataset Information

Association of PET-based stages of amyloid deposition with neuropathological markers of A? pathology.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine if PET-based stages of regional amyloid deposition are associated with neuropathological phases of A? pathology.

Methods

We applied data-driven regional frequency-based and a-priori striatum-based PET staging approaches to ante-mortem 18F-Florbetapir-PET scans of 30 cases from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative autopsy cohort, and used Bayesian regression analysis to study the associations of these in vivo amyloid stages with neuropathological Thal phases of regional A? plaque distribution and with semi-quantitative ratings of neocortical and striatal plaque densities.

Results

Bayesian regression revealed extreme evidence for an association of both PET-based staging approaches with Thal phases, and these associations were about 44 times more likely for frequency-based stages and 89 times more likely for striatum-based stages than for global cortical 18F-Florbetapir-PET signal. Early (i.e., neocortical-only) PET-based amyloid stages also predicted the absence of striatal/diencephalic cored plaques. Receiver operating characteristics curves revealed highly accurate discrimination between low/high Thal phases and the presence/absence of regional plaques. The median areas under the curve were 0.99 for frequency-based staging (95% credibility interval 0.97-1.00), 0.93 for striatum-based staging (0.83-1.00), and 0.87 for global 18F-Florbetapir-PET signal (0.72-0.98).

Interpretation

Our data indicate that both regional frequency- and striatum-based amyloid-PET staging approaches were superior to standard global amyloid-PET signal for differentiating between low and high degrees of regional amyloid pathology spread. Despite this, we found no evidence for the ability of either staging scheme to differentiate between low and moderate degrees of amyloid pathology which may be particularly relevant for early, preclinical stages of Alzheimer's disease.

SUBMITTER: Teipel SJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7818279 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Association of PET-based stages of amyloid deposition with neuropathological markers of Aβ pathology.

Teipel Stefan J SJ Temp Anna G M AGM Levin Fedor F Dyrba Martin M Grothe Michel J MJ

Annals of clinical and translational neurology 20201102 1

<h4>Objective</h4>To determine if PET-based stages of regional amyloid deposition are associated with neuropathological phases of Aβ pathology.<h4>Methods</h4>We applied data-driven regional frequency-based and a-priori striatum-based PET staging approaches to ante-mortem 18F-Florbetapir-PET scans of 30 cases from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative autopsy cohort, and used Bayesian regression analysis to study the associations of these in vivo amyloid stages with neuropathological T ...[more]

PMID: 33137247

Similar Datasets

Project description:The deposition of the amyloid β-protein (Aβ) in senile plaques is one of the histopathological hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Aβ-plaques arise first in neocortical areas and, then, expand into further brain regions in a process described by 5 phases. Since it is possible to identify amyloid pathology with radioactive-labeled tracers by positron emission tomography (PET) the question arises whether it is possible to distinguish the neuropathological Aβ-phases with amyloid PET imaging. To address this question we reassessed 97 cases of the end-of-life study cohort of the phase 3 [18F]flutemetamol trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers NCT01165554, and NCT02090855) by combining the standardized uptake value ratios (SUVRs) with pons as reference region for cortical and caudate nucleus-related [18F]flutemetamol-retention. We tested them for their prediction of the neuropathological pattern found at autopsy. By defining threshold levels for cortical and caudate nucleus SUVRs we could distinguish different levels of [18F]flutemetamol uptake termed PET-Aβ phase estimates. When comparing these PET-Aβ phase estimates with the neuropathological Aβ-phases we found that PET-Aβ phase estimate 0 corresponded with Aβ-phases 0-2, 1 with Aβ-phase 3, 2 with Aβ-phase 4, and 3 with Aβ-phase 5. Classification using the PET-Aβ phase estimates predicted the correct Aβ-phase in 72.16% of the cases studied here. Bootstrap analysis was used to confirm the robustness of the estimates around this association. When allowing a range of ± 1 phase for a given Aβ-phase correct classification was given in 96.91% of the cases. In doing so, we provide a novel method to convert SUVR-levels into PET-Aβ phase estimates that can be easily translated into neuropathological phases of Aβ-deposition. This method allows direct conclusions about the pathological distribution of amyloid plaques (Aβ-phases) in vivo. Accordingly, this method may be ideally suited to detect early preclinical AD-patients, to follow them with disease progression, and to provide a more precise prognosis for them based on the knowledge about the underlying pathological phase of the disease.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate a novel β-amyloid (Aβ)-PET-based quantitative measure (Aβ accumulation index [Aβ index]), including the assessment of its ability to discriminate between participants based on Aβ status using visual read, CSF Aβ42/Aβ40, and post-mortem neuritic plaque burden as standards of truth.MethodsOne thousand one hundred twenty-one participants (with and without cognitive impairment) were scanned with Aβ-PET: Swedish BioFINDER, n = 392, [18F]flutemetamol; Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI), n = 692, [18F]florbetapir; and a phase 3 end-of-life study, n = 100, [18F]flutemetamol. The relationships between Aβ index and standardized uptake values ratios (SUVR) from Aβ-PET were assessed. The diagnostic performances of Aβ index and SUVR were compared with visual reads, CSF Aβ42/Aβ40, and Aβ histopathology used as reference standards.ResultsStrong associations were observed between Aβ index and SUVR (R 2: BioFINDER 0.951, ADNI 0.943, end-of-life, 0.916). Both measures performed equally well in differentiating Aβ-positive from Aβ-negative participants, with areas under the curve (AUCs) of 0.979 to 0.991 to detect abnormal visual reads, AUCs of 0.961 to 0.966 to detect abnormal CSF Aβ42/Aβ40, and AUCs of 0.820 to 0.823 to detect abnormal Aβ histopathology. Both measures also showed a similar distribution across postmortem-based Aβ phases (based on anti-Aβ 4G8 antibodies). Compared to models using visual read alone, the addition of the Aβ index resulted in a significant increase in AUC and a decrease in Akaike information criterion to detect abnormal Aβ histopathology.ConclusionThe proposed Aβ index showed a tight association to SUVR and carries an advantage over the latter in that it does not require the definition of regions of interest or the use of MRI. Aβ index may thus prove simpler to implement in clinical settings and may also facilitate the comparison of findings using different Aβ-PET tracers.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class III evidence that the Aβ accumulation index accurately differentiates Aβ-positive from Aβ-negative participants compared to Aβ-PET visual reads, CSF Aβ42/Aβ40, and Aβ histopathology.

Project description:Staging the severity of Alzheimer's disease pathology using biomarkers is useful for therapeutic trials and clinical prognosis. Disease staging with amyloid and tau PET has face validity; however, this would be more practical with plasma biomarkers. Our objectives were, first, to examine approaches for staging amyloid and tau PET and, second, to examine prediction of amyloid and tau PET stages using plasma biomarkers. Participants (n = 1136) were enrolled in either the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging or the Alzheimer's Disease Research Center; had a concurrent amyloid PET, tau PET and blood draw; and met clinical criteria for cognitively unimpaired (n = 864), mild cognitive impairment (n = 148) or Alzheimer's clinical syndrome with dementia (n = 124). The latter two groups were combined into a cognitively impaired group (n = 272). We used multinomial regression models to estimate discrimination [concordance (C) statistics] among three amyloid PET stages (low, intermediate, high), four tau PET stages (Braak 0, 1-2, 3-4, 5-6) and a combined amyloid and tau PET stage (none/low versus intermediate/high severity) using plasma biomarkers as predictors separately within unimpaired and impaired individuals. Plasma analytes, p-tau181, Aβ1-42 and Aβ1-40 (analysed as the Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio), glial fibrillary acidic protein and neurofilament light chain were measured on the HD-X Simoa Quanterix platform. Plasma p-tau217 was also measured in a subset (n = 355) of cognitively unimpaired participants using the Lilly Meso Scale Discovery assay. Models with all Quanterix plasma analytes along with risk factors (age, sex and APOE) most often provided the best discrimination among amyloid PET stages (C = 0.78-0.82). Models with p-tau181 provided similar discrimination of tau PET stages to models with all four plasma analytes (C = 0.72-0.85 versus C = 0.73-0.86). Discriminating a PET proxy of intermediate/high from none/low Alzheimer's disease neuropathological change with all four Quanterix plasma analytes was excellent but not better than p-tau181 only (C = 0.88 versus 0.87 for unimpaired and C = 0.91 versus 0.90 for impaired). Lilly p-tau217 outperformed the Quanterix p-tau181 assay for discriminating high versus intermediate amyloid (C = 0.85 versus 0.74) but did not improve over a model with all Quanterix plasma analytes and risk factors (C = 0.85 versus 0.83). Plasma analytes along with risk factors can discriminate between amyloid and tau PET stages and between a PET surrogate for intermediate/high versus none/low neuropathological change with accuracy in the acceptable to excellent range. Combinations of plasma analytes are better than single analytes for many staging predictions with the exception that Quanterix p-tau181 alone usually performed equivalently to combinations of Quanterix analytes for tau PET discrimination.