A comparison of advanced semi-quantitative amyloid PET analysis methods

Abstract

Purpose To date, there is no consensus on how to semi-quantitatively assess brain amyloid PET. Some approaches use late acquisition alone (e.g., ELBA, based on radiomic features), others integrate the early scan (e.g., TDr, which targets the area of maximum perfusion) and structural imaging (e.g., WMR, that compares kinetic behaviour of white and grey matter, or SI based on the kinetic characteristics of the grey matter alone). In this study SUVr, ELBA, TDr, WMR, and SI were compared. The latter — the most complete one — provided the reference measure for amyloid burden allowing to assess the efficacy and feasibility in clinical setting of the other approaches. Methods We used data from 85 patients (aged 44–87) who underwent dual time-point PET/MRI acquisitions. The correlations with SI were computed and the methods compared with the visual assessment. Assuming SUVr, ELBA, TDr, and WMR to be independent measures, we linearly combined them to obtain more robust indices. Finally, we investigated possible associations between each quantifier and age in amyloid-negative patients. Results Each quantifier exhibited excellent agreement with visual assessment and strong correlation with SI (average AUC = 0.99, ρ = 0.91). Exceptions to this were observed for subcortical regions with ELBA and WMR (ρELBA = 0.44, ρWMR = 0.70). The linear combinations showed better performances than the individual methods. Significant associations were observed between TDr, WMR, SI, and age in amyloid-negative patients (p < 0.05). Conclusion Among the other methods, TDr came closest to the reference with less implementation complexity. Moreover, this study suggests that combining independent approaches gives better results than the individual procedure, so efforts should focus on multi-classifier systems for amyloid PET. Finally, the ability of techniques integrating blood perfusion to depict age-related variations in amyloid load in amyloid-negative subjects demonstrates the goodness of the estimate.

Novel β-amyloid PET Imaging Study of [18F]92 in Patients with Cognitive Decline

“…Global SUVR is a standard and valuable parameter for assessing the degree of global Aβ accumulation, increasingly used in antiamyloid clinical trials and for staging an individual’s Aβ pathology progression. − In our study, global SUVR effectively distinguished the Aβ+ group from the Aβ– group with an impressive AUC of 0.963 at an SUVR threshold of 1.18. This cutoff value closely approximated the global SUVR thresholds reported in previous [ 18 F]Florbetapir PET/CT studies, despite minor differences in data collection methods and reference brain regions. − Furthermore, we conducted an analysis of the correlations between plasma AD biomarkers and the global SUVR of [ 18 F] 92 to assess the consistency of cerebral Aβ deposition with plasma biomarkers.…”

Seeing more than the tip of the iceberg: Approaches to subthreshold effects in functional magnetic resonance imaging of the brain

“…The scenario of presurgical fMRI mandates control for false negative results and alternative thresholding approaches have been suggested for this purpose [34]. As further clinical neuroimaging analogies, imaging data such as those obtained from computed tomography perfusion in acute ischemic stroke [35] or beta amyloid positron emission tomography [36] are usually viewed or analysed without fixed thresholding in order to avoid biases. In order to provide more information than typical main article figures, more detailed maps (e.g.…”

Deep learning in computed tomography to predict endotype in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps

“…A recent study reported good performance in predicting the endotype of CRSwNP using radiomics based on sinus CT data, with an AUC of 0.815 [ 13 ]. However, radiomics requires manual interventions for both image segmentation and feature extraction, indicating that its working principle cannot be separated from the essence of semi-qualitative and semi-quantitative data [ 17 , 18 ]. Moreover, the results are affected by subjective factors, resulting in poor prediction performance.…”