Comparison of tau‐PET tracers for in vivo Braak staging: the HEAD Study

Abstract

BackgroundTau‐PET tracers allow for in vivo Braak staging of individuals in the Alzheimer’s disease (AD) continuum. The impact of tracers’ characteristics for Braak staging using tau‐PET remains unclear. Therefore, we performed a head‐to‐head comparison of Braak staging using first‐ and second‐generation tau‐PET tracers.MethodWe assessed 51 cognitively unimpaired (CU) and 49 cognitively impaired participants (mean [SD] age 69.4 [7.5] years) with at least two tau‐PET ligands ([18F]MK6240, [18F]AV1451, and/or [18F]RO948) at McGill University, as part of the HEAD study. We calculated standardized uptake value ratios (SUVR) in Braak‐like regions of interest (ROI) for each ligand and investigated their association using Spearman’s correlation. Thresholds defined the presence of tauopathy in each Braak ROI, which was used to assign a Braak stage to each participant. Finally, we assessed the agreement between the Braak staging provided by each tracer, both for the traditional (using separate Braak stages – 0, I, II, III, IV, V, and VI) and simplified (using joint Braak stages – 0, I‐II, III‐IV, and V‐VI) frameworks.ResultIn all Braak ROIs, we found positive correlations between the SUVR values of the three tracers (Figure 1). The strongest correlation was between [18F]MK6240 and [18F]RO948 in Braak II (r=0.94), and the weakest between [18F]AV1451 and [18F]RO948 in VI (r=0.51). Inter‐tracer agreement regarding the latest stage of abnormality was substantial or nearly perfect between pairs of tracers but moderate between the three tracers (Figure 2A). The simplified framework presented greater agreement compared to traditional Braak staging, except between [18F]MK6240 and [18F]RO948. At the ROI level, the lowest agreements were observed for Braak II and I‐II, when [18F]MK6240 and [18F]RO948 were compared to [18F]AV1451 (Figure 2B‐C). [18F]AV1451 had the highest probability of overestimating the Braak stage assigned by [18F]MK6240 and by [18F]RO948, especially at earlier stages (Figure 3).ConclusionThe ligands presented moderate to nearly perfect agreement for in vivo staging of AD severity. Off‐target binding of [18F]AV1451 to the choroid plexus might explain disagreements at early stages. Overall, slight improvements in agreements were achieved with the simplified framework, as observed in histopathological staging.