Sparrman, Kohl Johnson

AbstractBackgroundPositron emission tomography (PET) imaging with [18F]flortaucipir allows for in‐vivo visualization of aggregated tau in Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The FDA‐approved label for [18F]flortaucipir PET provides a standardized, clinically applicable definition of tau‐PET positivity by visual interpretation. Here, we studied the concordance between this visual interpretation and quantitative approaches employed in research.MethodWe included 2692 participants (cognitively unimpaired [CU] and impaired [CI, MCI or AD dementia]) from four cohorts (Mayo Clinic Study of Aging and ADRC, ADNI, A4, and A05) with available [18F]flortaucipir PET (mean age: 70.2 y, 50.0% females). Three trained readers assessed each [18F]flortaucipir PET scan according to the FDA‐approved method. Visual reads were compared to an established approach for defining tau‐PET positivity based on SUVR values in a temporal meta‐ROI (Jack, et al. Alzheimers Dement. 2017). Previously defined “lenient” (SUVR = 1.22) and “conservative” (SUVR = 1.30) cut‐points were explored. In addition, visual reads were compared to tau‐PET positivity as defined by a scheme based on the expected spatial progression of tau pathology from the medial temporal lobe (MTL) to the temporal neocortex (NEO) (Ossenkoppele, et al. Nat Med. 2022; cut‐points: SUVRMTL = 1.30, SUVRNEO = 1.37).ResultConcordance between visual and quantitative approaches was limited (Figure 1): the “lenient” and MTL‐NEO methods yielded high rates of quantitative‐positive, visual‐negative scans (73‐52% and 26‐18% for CU and CI, respectively), while the “conservative” cut‐point failed to detect 45% and 13% of the CU and CI visual‐positive scans, respectively. The prevalence of tau‐PET positivity in Aβ‐negative individuals was highest with the “lenient” cut‐point (∼24%) and lowest with visual interpretation (∼3%) (Figure 2). Visual‐positive, quantitative‐negative individuals were more frequently Aβ‐positive than visual‐negative, quantitative‐positive individuals (“lenient”: 86% vs 50%, p<0.001; “conservative”: 87% vs 58%, p<0.001; MTL‐NEO: 85% vs 70%, p = 0.005). Among visually‐positive participants, 164 (28%) showed a tau deposition pattern that deviated from the expected MTL to NEO progression (Figure 3).ConclusionVisual and quantitative methods for [18F]flortaucipir PET are non‐exchangeable. Tau‐PET positivity based on visual interpretation aligns better with Aβ‐pathology. A significant number of visually‐positive participants showed a pattern of tau accumulation that deviated from the expected stereotypical spatial progression and was not detected by standard quantitative methods.

AbstractBackgroundLarge neuroimaging studies like ADNI‐4 now include T1‐weighted, T2‐weighted and FLAIR images at isotropic1mm resolution for investigation of both neurodegenerative and cerebrovascular disease. These three input types allow segmentation of GM, WM, DeepGM, WMH, and CSF compartments. Additionally, this supports automated assessment of enlarged perivascular spaces (PVS). Our objective was to propose a unified framework for segmentation of intracranial classes and PVS while reducing human effort.MethodsFLAIR and T2‐weighted images are aligned to the T1‐weighted image.. Standard SPM12 unified segmentation using all three input images establishes deformations between subject and template space and bias field corrections. Extended tissue priors including deep GM are deformed into subject space. Adding mean intensities from high probability deep GM voxels as seeds and using the extended prior set, segmentation is re‐started, refining model parameters, deformations and bias‐field estimates. The procedure repeats, adding a WMH channel, resulting in a segmentation including GM, WM, CSF, deep GM, WMH and nuisance classes. Frangi filters are applied to the T1‐ and T2‐ weighted images. Filter response images are smoothed, averaged, masked and inserted in place of the CSF prior. Probability maps of vessel‐like shapes with CSF‐like contrast are estimated to identify PVS. Visual grading was also performed for comparison.ResultsThe method was applied to 300 participants. Visual quality control found two instances of poor WMH over‐segmentation. Perivascular space maps were all visually reasonable. Standard segmentation classes were visibly superior to single T1‐based segmentation. Figures 1,2 present examples. Pearson correlations of PVS fractional volume with multiple human raters’ PVS counts in CSO/CR was over 0.7 in a subset of 125 participants (Figure 3).ConclusionModern dementia protocols include high‐resolution T1‐weighted, T2‐weighted, and FLAIR images that can be used together as inputs to extend probabilistic segmentation adding deep grey and WMH classes with automated PVS assessment.

AbstractBackgroundPositron emission tomography (PET) imaging with [18F]flortaucipir allows for in‐vivo visualization of aggregated tau in Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The FDA‐approved label for [18F]flortaucipir PET provides a standardized, clinically applicable definition of tau‐PET positivity by visual interpretation. Here, we studied the concordance between this visual interpretation and quantitative approaches employed in research.MethodWe included 2692 participants (cognitively unimpaired [CU] and impaired [CI, MCI or AD dementia]) from four cohorts (Mayo Clinic Study of Aging and ADRC, ADNI, A4, and A05) with available [18F]flortaucipir PET (mean age: 70.2 y, 50.0% females). Three trained readers assessed each [18F]flortaucipir PET scan according to the FDA‐approved method. Visual reads were compared to an established approach for defining tau‐PET positivity based on SUVR values in a temporal meta‐ROI (Jack, et al. Alzheimers Dement. 2017). Previously defined “lenient” (SUVR = 1.22) and “conservative” (SUVR = 1.30) cut‐points were explored. In addition, visual reads were compared to tau‐PET positivity as defined by a scheme based on the expected spatial progression of tau pathology from the medial temporal lobe (MTL) to the temporal neocortex (NEO) (Ossenkoppele, et al. Nat Med. 2022; cut‐points: SUVRMTL = 1.30, SUVRNEO = 1.37).ResultConcordance between visual and quantitative approaches was limited (Figure 1): the “lenient” and MTL‐NEO methods yielded high rates of quantitative‐positive, visual‐negative scans (73‐52% and 26‐18% for CU and CI, respectively), while the “conservative” cut‐point failed to detect 45% and 13% of the CU and CI visual‐positive scans, respectively. The prevalence of tau‐PET positivity in Aß‐negative individuals was highest with the “lenient” cut‐point (∼24%) and lowest with visual interpretation (∼3%) (Figure 2). Visual‐positive, quantitative‐negative individuals were more frequently Aß‐positive than visual‐negative, quantitative‐positive individuals (“lenient”: 86% vs 50%, p<0.001; “conservative”: 87% vs 58%, p<0.001; MTL‐NEO: 85% vs 70%, p = 0.005). Among visually‐positive participants, 164 (28%) showed a tau deposition pattern that deviated from the expected MTL to NEO progression (Figure 3).ConclusionVisual and quantitative methods for [18F]flortaucipir PET are non‐exchangeable. Tau‐PET positivity based on visual interpretation aligns better with Aß‐pathology. A significant number of visually‐positive participants showed a pattern of tau accumulation that deviated from the expected stereotypical spatial progression and was not detected by standard quantitative methods.

AbstractBackgroundLarge neuroimaging studies like ADNI‐4 now include T1‐weighted, T2‐weighted and FLAIR images at isotropic1mm resolution for investigation of both neurodegenerative and cerebrovascular disease. These three input types allow segmentation of GM, WM, DeepGM, WMH, and CSF compartments. Additionally, this supports automated assessment of enlarged perivascular spaces (PVS). Our objective was to propose a unified framework for segmentation of intracranial classes and PVS while reducing human effort.MethodFLAIR and T2‐weighted images are aligned to the T1‐weighted image.. Standard SPM12 unified segmentation using all three input images establishes deformations between subject and template space and bias field corrections. Extended tissue priors including deep GM are deformed into subject space. Adding mean intensities from high probability deep GM voxels as seeds and using the extended prior set, segmentation is re‐started, refining model parameters, deformations and bias‐field estimates. The procedure repeats, adding a WMH channel, resulting in a segmentation including GM, WM, CSF, deep GM, WMH and nuisance classes. Frangi filters are applied to the T1‐ and T2‐ weighted images. Filter response images are smoothed, averaged, masked and inserted in place of the CSF prior. Probability maps of vessel‐like shapes with CSF‐like contrast are estimated to identify PVS. Visual grading was also performed for comparison.ResultThe method was applied to 300 participants. Visual quality control found two instances of poor WMH over‐segmentation. Perivascular space maps were all visually reasonable. Standard segmentation classes were visibly superior to single T1‐based segmentation. Figures 1,2 present examples. Pearson correlations of PVS fractional volume with multiple human raters’ PVS counts in CSO/CR was over 0.7 in a subset of 125 participants (Figure 3).ConclusionModern dementia protocols include high‐resolution T1‐weighted, T2‐weighted, and FLAIR images that can be used together as inputs to extend probabilistic segmentation adding deep grey and WMH classes with automated PVS assessment.