Johnson, Sterling C.

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 The Joint Propagation Model (JPM)‐based CenTauR scale was recently introduced to harmonize tau‐PET quantification across different radiotracers. This study examined how CenTauR harmonization enhances the comparability of tau‐PET quantification across matched cohorts using different tracers. The evaluation focused on three key aspects: (1) comparing tau‐PET positivity rates as defined by CenTauR, (2) evaluating its diagnostic accuracy for symptomatic AD, and (3) analyzing longitudinal changes in tau‐PET rates over time. Method The JPM, developed by the CPAD‐led Tau PET Harmonization Working Group (Leuzy et al., Alzheimers Dement. 2024; Figure 1A), models relationships between anchor point subjects and head‐to‐head tau‐PET SUVR data onto the CenTauR scale, providing conversion equations for multiple tracers. JPM equations were applied to [¹⁸F]flortaucipir SUVR (Meta‐temporal ROI) data from 561 cognitively impaired participants in the ADNI and OASIS‐3 studies. Using ROC analysis, we determined the CenTauR cut‐off for positivity (T+) that maximized the Youden index for discriminating between FDA‐approved positive/negative visual reads. Three separate cohorts, scanned using [¹⁸F]flortaucipir (ADNI), [¹⁸F]MK‐6240 (CPAS), and [¹⁸F]RO‐948 (BioFINDER‐2), were matched 1:1 by age, MMSE, amyloid‐β, and clinical diagnosis. CenTauR‐based metrics were compared across these cohorts. Result A cut‐off of 18 CenTauRs was found to optimally classify [ 18 F]flortaucipir PET visual reads (Figure 1B). The matching procedure identified 1089 participants (363 per cohort). The frequency of T+ using the 18 CenTauRs cut‐off for the Meta‐Temporal ROI was highly comparable across tracers across groups, except for the Aβ‐positive cognitively unimpaired group, where variability was more pronounced due to a smaller sample size (Figure 2A). Similarly, tau‐PET discriminative accuracy for symptomatic AD vs controls remained similar across [ 18 F]flortaucipir and [ 18 F]MK‐6240 (Figure 2B). In a separate sample of 212 matched participants from ADNI ([¹⁸F]flortaucipir) and AIBL ([¹⁸F]MK‐6240) with baseline and 1‐year follow‐up tau‐PET scans, 1‐year change in CenTauRs was comparable (Figure 2C). An exploratory voxelwise transformation, utilizing the Meta‐Temporal conversion equation in a representative case scanned with both [¹⁸F]flortaucipir and [¹⁸F]MK‐6240, demonstrates the potential for voxelwise CenTauR harmonization (Figure 3). Conclusion These analyses suggest that CenTauR harmonization increases the comparability of tau‐PET data acquired with different tracers. Additional validation analyses with larger cohorts including other radiotracers ([¹⁸F]PI‐2620) are underway.