Mainta, Isminni

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.

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.