Tessa Timmers, Rik Ossenkoppele, Denise Visser, Hayel Tuncel, Emma E Wolters, Sander Cj Verfaillie, Wiesje M van der Flier, Ronald Boellaard, Sandeep Sv Golla, Bart Nm van Berckel
{"title":"Test-retest repeatability of [<sup>18</sup>F]Flortaucipir PET in Alzheimer's disease and cognitively normal individuals.","authors":"Tessa Timmers, Rik Ossenkoppele, Denise Visser, Hayel Tuncel, Emma E Wolters, Sander Cj Verfaillie, Wiesje M van der Flier, Ronald Boellaard, Sandeep Sv Golla, Bart Nm van Berckel","doi":"10.1177/0271678X19879226","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aim of this study was to investigate the test-retest (TRT) repeatability of various parametric quantification methods for [<sup>18</sup>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 [<sup>18</sup>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<sub>80-100</sub>: 3.05% (1.28-5.52), <i>p</i> < 0.001. Furthermore, for SUVr<sub>80-100</sub> and SUVr<sub>110-130</sub>, 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":15356,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7705644/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0271678X19879226","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the test-retest (TRT) repeatability of various parametric quantification methods for [18F]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 [18F]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. SUVr80-100: 3.05% (1.28-5.52), p < 0.001. Furthermore, for SUVr80-100 and SUVr110-130, 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.