Tanner, Jeremy A.

Abstract Background In vivo biomarkers that can detect long‐term neuropathologies from repetitive head impact (RHI) exposure are needed, especially for the neurodegenerative tauopathy chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). Here, we evaluated plasma p ‐tau217 as a potential biomarker for CTE p ‐tau pathology, and examined the concordance between plasma p ‐tau217 and Aβ pathology in an at‐risk for CTE sample. Method The sample included 180 male former football players (120 professional, 60 college), and 56 asymptomatic men without RHI (i.e., controls). Participants completed blood draws, 18F‐florbetapir (Aβ+=SUVR≥1.10), and 18F‐flortaucipir PET. Traumatic encephalopathy syndrome (TES) diagnoses were made. Single molecule array for plasma p ‐tau217 (ALZpath) was performed (≥0.6 cutoff used to maximize sensitivity). Nine participants had post‐mortem tissue. ANCOVA examined group differences in p ‐tau217 (football vs controls; TES‐CTE no, TES‐CTE suggestive, TES‐CTE possible/probable). Multivariable regression models tested associations between p ‐tau217 and florbetapir/flortaucipir PET. Covariates included age, race and APOE e4 . Result Sample characteristics are in Table 1. p ‐tau217 concentrations were higher in former football players compared to controls (est. marginal mean difference=‐0.217, p = 0.005). There were no group differences in Aβ‐PET SUVR. No differences were found across TES‐CTE certainty levels. In football players, higher p ‐tau217 was associated with higher Aβ‐PET SUVR (B=1.380, 95%CI[0.597‐2.155], p = 0.001) but not when Aβ+ ( n = 17) participants and those with kidney/liver disease ( n = 5) were excluded. Aβ+ participants had the highest p ‐tau217 (Figure 1). When compared against Aβ‐PET, several false Aβ‐positives (high p ‐tau217, Aβ‐) were identified, including one extreme outlier (assay related) and a cluster of Aβ‐ participants with p ‐tau217 between 0.60–1.0. There were no associations with flortaucipir SUVR (frontal, mesial temporal, left parietal). Two extreme p ‐tau217 outliers had autopsy‐confirmed CTE stage III (AD‐, Table 2). Of the remaining donors, all were AD‐ and four had CTE (stages II‐IV) with ptau217 between 0.125‐0.449. Conclusion Plasma p ‐tau217 has usefulness in quantifying Aβ pathology but restricted utility for detection of CTE. In this at‐risk for CTE sample, p ‐tau217 and Aβ‐PET were associated at the group level. At the individual level, false Aβ‐positives (and negatives) existed, including Aβ‐ participants with high p ‐tau217. We will explore whether this discrepancy is due to disease or peripheral interference with the N‐terminal binding in p ‐tau assays.

Abstract Background PET visual reads for multi‐center studies are conducted centrally by one or a few experts. In CLARiTI, a broader network of raters will perform the reads, necessitating methods to ensure their accuracy and reliability. Method All ADRC sites ( N = 37) will prospectively acquire amyloid PET scans for 800 cognitively unimpaired and 1200 cognitively impaired participants. Each site can use one of four amyloid PET tracers ([ 18 F]florbetaben, [ 18 F]florbetapir, [ 11 C]PIB, [ 18 F]NAV4694). PET scans will be visually interpreted by ten PET neuroimaging experts located across eight ADRCs, using their preferred hardware, software, and file format (DICOM, NIFTI). Calibration requires readers to perform blinded, independent visual interpretation of 180 amyloid PET scans (30 unique and 15 duplicate scans per tracer), previously read and selected by an expert (Table 1). An even mix of visually non‐elevated and elevated scans were selected, with quantitation spanning ‐26‐123 Centiloids (Figure 1), and 15% were visually borderline (similar proportion to ADNI4), with quantitation spanning 4‐48 Centiloids (mean 21). Kruskal‐Wallis H test showed no significant difference in the distribution of Centiloid values for scans in each tracer group, Χ 2 (3)=2.133, p = 0.545. Result Calibration scans were read by a second expert not serving in CLARiTI. There was 97% concordance and almost perfect agreement between readers (κ=0.932, p <0.001; Figure 2). Discordantly read scans were visually borderline elevated ( N = 2), borderline non‐elevated ( N = 1), and negative ( N = 1), with quantitation of 8‐21 Centiloids (mean 14). Intra‐rater reads were 98% concordant and had almost perfect agreement (κ=0.966, p <0.001). These findings hold promise for scaling‐up visual reads in CLARiTI, and we expect ≥80% concordance and substantial to almost perfect agreement (κ≥0.7) for inter/intra‐rater reliability. Conclusion Calibration is essential for accurate/reliable amyloid PET visual reads in large multi‐center studies with multiple raters. Through the calibration process, we will develop methods to improve the adjudication of borderline/challenging scans and formalize methods for visual reads of amyloid PET tracers that are investigational (i.e., [ 11 C]PIB, [ 18 F]NAV4694). Involving multiple raters across different sites, who use diverse hardware/software/file format combinations, will mirror the natural heterogeneity present in real‐world clinical practice. This calibration set can also serve as a standardized training tool for other studies incorporating amyloid PET visual reads.

Abstract Background PET visual reads for multi‐center studies are conducted centrally by one or a few experts. In CLARiTI, a broader network of raters will perform the reads, necessitating methods to ensure their accuracy and reliability. Method All ADRC sites ( N = 37) will prospectively acquire amyloid PET scans for 800 cognitively unimpaired and 1200 cognitively impaired participants. Each site can use one of four amyloid PET tracers ([ 18 F]florbetaben, [ 18 F]florbetapir, [ 11 C]PIB, [ 18 F]NAV4694). PET scans will be visually interpreted by ten PET neuroimaging experts located across eight ADRCs, using their preferred hardware, software, and file format (DICOM, NIFTI). Calibration requires readers to perform blinded, independent visual interpretation of 180 amyloid PET scans (30 unique and 15 duplicate scans per tracer), previously read and selected by an expert (Table 1). An even mix of visually non‐elevated and elevated scans were selected, with quantitation spanning ‐26‐123 Centiloids (Figure 1), and 15% were visually borderline (similar proportion to ADNI4), with quantitation spanning 4‐48 Centiloids (mean 21). Kruskal‐Wallis H test showed no significant difference in the distribution of Centiloid values for scans in each tracer group, Χ 2 (3)=2.133, p = 0.545. Result Calibration scans were read by a second expert not serving in CLARiTI. There was 97% concordance and almost perfect agreement between readers (κ=0.932, p <0.001; Figure 2). Discordantly read scans were visually borderline elevated ( N = 2), borderline non‐elevated ( N = 1), and negative ( N = 1), with quantitation of 8‐21 Centiloids (mean 14). Intra‐rater reads were 98% concordant and had almost perfect agreement (κ=0.966, p <0.001). These findings hold promise for scaling‐up visual reads in CLARiTI, and we expect ≥80% concordance and substantial to almost perfect agreement (κ≥0.7) for inter/intra‐rater reliability. Conclusion Calibration is essential for accurate/reliable amyloid PET visual reads in large multi‐center studies with multiple raters. Through the calibration process, we will develop methods to improve the adjudication of borderline/challenging scans and formalize methods for visual reads of amyloid PET tracers that are investigational (i.e., [ 11 C]PIB, [ 18 F]NAV4694). Involving multiple raters across different sites, who use diverse hardware/software/file format combinations, will mirror the natural heterogeneity present in real‐world clinical practice. This calibration set can also serve as a standardized training tool for other studies incorporating amyloid PET visual reads.

Abstract INTRODUCTION In multicenter Alzheimer's disease studies, amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) visual reads are typically performed centrally by a few experts. Incorporating a broader reader network enhances scalability and generalizability. METHODS Ten neuroimaging experts from eight Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers (ADRCs) visually read 180 amyloid PET scans (30 scans and 15 duplicate scans for each of four tracers, imaged across a wide variety of scanners), using preferred reading software without anatomical imaging or quantitation. Scans were classified as elevated or non‐elevated per tracer‐specific criteria. Inter‐ and intra‐rater agreement was assessed. RESULTS Inter‐rater agreement was substantial (Fleiss’ κ = 0.78), with full consensus on 69% of scans. Inter‐rater reliability was substantial to perfect across tracers (Fleiss’ κ = 0.70–0.87). Intra‐rater agreement was substantial to perfect (Cohen's κ = 0.79‐1). Scans with intermediate (10–40 Centiloid) quantitation had lower reader agreement. DISCUSSION A multicenter expert network achieved substantial agreement classifying amyloid PET scans. These scans provide a standard for reader training and reliability assurance in future studies. Highlights Calibration methods ensure reliable amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) visual reads across multiple raters. Substantial agreement is possible across readers using their preferred tools. Agreement is also substantial regardless of the amyloid PET tracer used. Scans with intermediate (10–40 Centiloid) quantitation have lower reader agreement. The calibration set will become a training tool for amyloid PET visual read studies.

Abstract INTRODUCTION We aimed to describe baseline amyloid‐beta (Aβ) and tau‐positron emission tomograrphy (PET) from Longitudinal Early‐onset Alzheimer's Disease Study (LEADS), a prospective multi‐site observational study of sporadic early‐onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD). METHODS We analyzed baseline [18F]Florbetaben (Aβ) and [18F]Flortaucipir (tau)‐PET from cognitively impaired participants with a clinical diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or AD dementia aged < 65 years. Florbetaben scans were used to distinguish cognitively impaired participants with EOAD (Aβ+) from EOnonAD (Aβ−) based on the combination of visual read by expert reader and image quantification. RESULTS 243/321 (75.7%) of participants were assigned to the EOAD group based on amyloid‐PET; 231 (95.1%) of them were tau‐PET positive (A+T+). Tau‐PET signal was elevated across cortical regions with a parietal‐predominant pattern, and higher burden was observed in younger and female EOAD participants. DISCUSSION LEADS data emphasizes the importance of biomarkers to enhance diagnostic accuracy in EOAD. The advanced tau‐PET binding at baseline might have implications for therapeutic strategies in patients with EOAD. HIGHLIGHTS 72% of patients with clinical EOAD were positive on both amyloid‐ and tau‐PET. Amyloid‐positive patients with EOAD had high tau‐PET signal across cortical regions. In EOAD, tau‐PET mediated the relationship between amyloid‐PET and MMSE. Among EOAD patients, younger onset and female sex were associated with higher tau‐PET.