Assessment of [18F]PI-2620 Tau-PET Quantification via Non-Invasive Automatized Image Derived Input Function.

IF 8.6 1区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Maria Meindl, Artem Zatcepin, Johannes Gnörich, Maximilian Scheifele, Mirlind Zaganjori, Mattes Groß, Simon Lindner, Rebecca Schaefer, Marcel Simmet, Sebastian Roemer, Sabrina Katzdobler, Johannes Levin, Günter Höglinger, Ann-Cathrin Bischof, Henryk Barthel, Osama Sabri, Peter Bartenstein, Thomas Saller, Nicolai Franzmeier, Sibylle Ziegler, Matthias Brendel
{"title":"Assessment of [<sup>18</sup>F]PI-2620 Tau-PET Quantification via Non-Invasive Automatized Image Derived Input Function.","authors":"Maria Meindl, Artem Zatcepin, Johannes Gnörich, Maximilian Scheifele, Mirlind Zaganjori, Mattes Groß, Simon Lindner, Rebecca Schaefer, Marcel Simmet, Sebastian Roemer, Sabrina Katzdobler, Johannes Levin, Günter Höglinger, Ann-Cathrin Bischof, Henryk Barthel, Osama Sabri, Peter Bartenstein, Thomas Saller, Nicolai Franzmeier, Sibylle Ziegler, Matthias Brendel","doi":"10.1007/s00259-024-06741-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>[<sup>18</sup>F]PI-2620 positron emission tomography (PET) detects misfolded tau in progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) and Alzheimer's disease (AD). We questioned the feasibility and value of absolute [<sup>18</sup>F]PI-2620 PET quantification for assessing tau by regional distribution volumes (V<sub>T</sub>). Here, arterial input functions (AIF) represent the gold standard, but cannot be applied in routine clinical practice, whereas image-derived input functions (IDIF) represent a non-invasive alternative. We aimed to validate IDIF against AIF and we evaluated the potential to discriminate patients with PSP and AD from healthy controls by non-invasive quantification of [<sup>18</sup>F] PET.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In the first part of the study, we validated AIF derived from radial artery whole blood against IDIF by investigating 20 subjects (ten controls and ten patients). IDIF were generated by manual extraction of the carotid artery using the average and the five highest (max5) voxel intensity values and by automated extraction of the carotid artery using the average and the maximum voxel intensity value. In the second part of the study, IDIF quantification using the IDIF with the closest match to the AIF was transferred to group comparison of a large independent cohort of 40 subjects (15 healthy controls, 15 PSP patients and 10 AD patients). We compared V<sub>T</sub> and V<sub>T</sub> ratios, both calculated by Logan plots, with distribution volume (DV) ratios using simplified reference tissue modelling and standardized uptake value (SUV) ratios.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>AIF and IDIF showed highly correlated input curves for all applied IDIF extraction methods (0.78 < r < 0.83, all p < 0.0001; area under the curves (AUC): 0.73 < r ≤ 0.82, all p ≤ 0.0003). Regarding the V<sub>T</sub> values, correlations were mainly found between those generated by the AIF and by the IDIF methods using the maximum voxel intensity values. Lowest relative differences (RD) were observed by applying the manual method using the five highest voxel intensity values (max5) (AIF vs. IDIF manual, avg: RD = -82%; AIF vs. IDIF automated, avg: RD = -86%; AIF vs. IDIF manual, max5: RD = -6%; AIF vs. IDIF automated, max: RD = -26%). Regional V<sub>T</sub> values revealed considerable variance at group level, which was strongly reduced upon scaling by the inferior cerebellum. The resulting V<sub>T</sub> ratio values were adequate to detect group differences between patients with PSP or AD and healthy controls (HC) (PSP target region (globus pallidus): HC vs. PSP vs. AD: 1.18 vs. 1.32 vs. 1.16; AD target region (Braak region I): HC vs. PSP vs. AD: 1.00 vs. 1.00 vs. 1.22). V<sub>T</sub> ratios and DV ratios outperformed SUV ratios and V<sub>T</sub> in detecting differences between PSP and healthy controls, whereas all quantification approaches performed similarly in comparing AD and healthy controls.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Blood-free IDIF is a promising approach for quantification of [<sup>18</sup>F]PI-2620 PET, serving as correlating surrogate for invasive continuous arterial blood sampling. Regional [<sup>18</sup>F]PI-2620 V<sub>T</sub> show large variance, in contrast to regional [<sup>18</sup>F]PI-2620 V<sub>T</sub> ratios scaled with the inferior cerebellum, which are appropriate for discriminating PSP, AD and healthy controls. DV ratios obtained by simplified reference tissue modeling are similarly suitable for this purpose.</p>","PeriodicalId":11909,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11368995/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-024-06741-7","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: [18F]PI-2620 positron emission tomography (PET) detects misfolded tau in progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) and Alzheimer's disease (AD). We questioned the feasibility and value of absolute [18F]PI-2620 PET quantification for assessing tau by regional distribution volumes (VT). Here, arterial input functions (AIF) represent the gold standard, but cannot be applied in routine clinical practice, whereas image-derived input functions (IDIF) represent a non-invasive alternative. We aimed to validate IDIF against AIF and we evaluated the potential to discriminate patients with PSP and AD from healthy controls by non-invasive quantification of [18F] PET.

Methods: In the first part of the study, we validated AIF derived from radial artery whole blood against IDIF by investigating 20 subjects (ten controls and ten patients). IDIF were generated by manual extraction of the carotid artery using the average and the five highest (max5) voxel intensity values and by automated extraction of the carotid artery using the average and the maximum voxel intensity value. In the second part of the study, IDIF quantification using the IDIF with the closest match to the AIF was transferred to group comparison of a large independent cohort of 40 subjects (15 healthy controls, 15 PSP patients and 10 AD patients). We compared VT and VT ratios, both calculated by Logan plots, with distribution volume (DV) ratios using simplified reference tissue modelling and standardized uptake value (SUV) ratios.

Results: AIF and IDIF showed highly correlated input curves for all applied IDIF extraction methods (0.78 < r < 0.83, all p < 0.0001; area under the curves (AUC): 0.73 < r ≤ 0.82, all p ≤ 0.0003). Regarding the VT values, correlations were mainly found between those generated by the AIF and by the IDIF methods using the maximum voxel intensity values. Lowest relative differences (RD) were observed by applying the manual method using the five highest voxel intensity values (max5) (AIF vs. IDIF manual, avg: RD = -82%; AIF vs. IDIF automated, avg: RD = -86%; AIF vs. IDIF manual, max5: RD = -6%; AIF vs. IDIF automated, max: RD = -26%). Regional VT values revealed considerable variance at group level, which was strongly reduced upon scaling by the inferior cerebellum. The resulting VT ratio values were adequate to detect group differences between patients with PSP or AD and healthy controls (HC) (PSP target region (globus pallidus): HC vs. PSP vs. AD: 1.18 vs. 1.32 vs. 1.16; AD target region (Braak region I): HC vs. PSP vs. AD: 1.00 vs. 1.00 vs. 1.22). VT ratios and DV ratios outperformed SUV ratios and VT in detecting differences between PSP and healthy controls, whereas all quantification approaches performed similarly in comparing AD and healthy controls.

Conclusion: Blood-free IDIF is a promising approach for quantification of [18F]PI-2620 PET, serving as correlating surrogate for invasive continuous arterial blood sampling. Regional [18F]PI-2620 VT show large variance, in contrast to regional [18F]PI-2620 VT ratios scaled with the inferior cerebellum, which are appropriate for discriminating PSP, AD and healthy controls. DV ratios obtained by simplified reference tissue modeling are similarly suitable for this purpose.

Abstract Image

通过非侵入性自动图像衍生输入函数评估 [18F]PI-2620 Tau-PET 定量。
目的:[18F]PI-2620 正电子发射断层扫描(PET)可检测进行性核上性麻痹(PSP)和阿尔茨海默病(AD)中折叠错误的 tau。我们对通过区域分布容积(VT)评估 tau 的 [18F]PI-2620 PET 绝对定量的可行性和价值提出了质疑。在这里,动脉输入函数(AIF)代表了黄金标准,但不能应用于常规临床实践,而图像衍生输入函数(IDIF)代表了一种无创替代方法。我们的目的是通过[18F] PET 的无创量化来验证 IDIF 与 AIF 的对比,并评估 IDIF 区分 PSP 和 AD 患者与健康对照组的潜力:在研究的第一部分,我们通过对 20 名受试者(10 名对照组和 10 名患者)进行调查,验证了从桡动脉全血中提取的 AIF 与 IDIF 的对比。通过使用平均值和五个最高(max5)体素强度值手动提取颈动脉,以及使用平均值和最大体素强度值自动提取颈动脉,生成了 IDIF。在研究的第二部分,使用与 AIF 匹配度最高的 IDIF 进行 IDIF 量化,并对由 40 名受试者(15 名健康对照组、15 名 PSP 患者和 10 名 AD 患者)组成的大型独立队列进行分组比较。我们将洛根图计算出的VT和VT比值与使用简化参考组织建模和标准化摄取值(SUV)比值计算出的分布容积(DV)比值进行了比较:在所有应用的 IDIF 提取方法中,AIF 和 IDIF 都显示出高度相关的输入曲线(0.78 T 值),相关性主要体现在 AIF 生成的输入曲线和使用最大体素强度值的 IDIF 方法生成的输入曲线之间。在使用五个最高体素强度值(max5)的手动方法中观察到的相对差异(RD)最小(AIF vs. IDIF manual,avg: RD = -82%;AIF vs. IDIF automated,avg: RD = -86%;AIF vs. IDIF manual,max5: RD = -6%;AIF vs. IDIF automated,max: RD = -26%):RD=-26%)。区域 VT 值在组别水平上显示出相当大的差异,在小脑下部进行缩放后,差异显著减小。由此得出的 VT 比值足以检测出 PSP 或 AD 患者与健康对照组(HC)之间的组间差异(PSP 目标区域(苍白球):HC vs. PSP vs. AD):HC vs. PSP vs. AD:1.18 vs. 1.32 vs. 1.16;AD 目标区域(Braak 区域 I):HC vs. PSP vs. AD: 1.00 vs. 1.00 vs. 1.22)。VT 比率和 DV 比率在检测 PSP 和健康对照组之间的差异方面优于 SUV 比率和 VT,而所有量化方法在比较 AD 和健康对照组时的表现相似:结论:无血IDIF是一种很有前途的[18F]PI-2620 PET量化方法,可作为有创连续动脉血采样的相关替代物。区域性[18F]PI-2620 VT显示出较大的差异,而与下小脑成比例的区域性[18F]PI-2620 VT比率则不同,后者适用于鉴别PSP、AD和健康对照组。通过简化参考组织建模获得的 DV 比值同样适用于这一目的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
15.60
自引率
9.90%
发文量
392
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging serves as a platform for the exchange of clinical and scientific information within nuclear medicine and related professions. It welcomes international submissions from professionals involved in the functional, metabolic, and molecular investigation of diseases. The journal's coverage spans physics, dosimetry, radiation biology, radiochemistry, and pharmacy, providing high-quality peer review by experts in the field. Known for highly cited and downloaded articles, it ensures global visibility for research work and is part of the EJNMMI journal family.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信