Hosseini, Seyyed Ali

Abstract Background The 2024 NIA‐AA criteria propose an Alzheimer's disease (AD) staging system based on medial temporal (MT) and neocortical tau burden. However, the optimal strategy to assess tau burden in these regions, which represent distinct phases of AD pathophysiology, remains unclear. Here, we compared tau load and spatial extent of tauopathy (SEOT) as markers of tau burden in participants scanned with [ 18 F]MK6240 and [ 18 F]FTP. We investigated the relationship between these metrics in MT and neocortical regions‐of‐interest (ROIs) and determined which better correlates with AD severity. Method A total of 257 cognitively unimpaired (CU) and 124 Aβ+ cognitively impaired participants (mean age 68.2 years; 58% female) from the HEAD study underwent tau‐PET imaging with both [ 18 F]MK6240 and [ 18 F]FTP. Tau load was quantified using regional SUVR, and SEOT was calculated as the proportion of abnormal voxels relative to young controls. Both metrics were derived from the MT and neocortical ROIs. Spearman's correlations were computed between SUVR and SEOT within the same tracer and across tracers in the same ROIs. We compared rho coefficients to assess whether one metric showed stronger concordance. Additionally, we compared the correlations of SEOT and SUVR with global cognition, cortical thickness, Aβ‐PET load, and plasma pTau‐217. Statistical comparisons were performed using the R package cocor . Result SUVR and SEOT exhibited non‐linear correlations in both MT and neocortical ROIs for both tracers, with SEOT enhancing the correlation between [ 18 F]MK6240 and [ 18 F]FTP in the neocortex ( p <.0001; Figure 1). Both metrics increased with AD severity, with MT SUVR outperforming SEOT in distinguishing Aβ‐ CU from Aβ+ CU individuals, and neocortical SEOT outperforming SUVR in distinguishing Aβ+ MCI from CU (Figure 2). Neocortical SEOT showed stronger correlations with AD severity markers than SUVR for both tracers. MT SEOT was comparable to SUVR, outperforming SUVR only in correlations with MMSE and Aβ‐PET for [ 18 F]FTP (Figure 3). Conclusion Tau extent improves the association of tau‐PET tracers with AD severity, particularly in the neocortex. These findings suggest that tau extent might be a more suitable surrogate marker of tau burden in neocortical regions, offering valuable insights for in vivo staging of tau pathology and clinical trials targeting late‐stage tau pathology.

AbstractBackgroundTau‐PET tracers allow for in vivo Braak staging of individuals in the Alzheimer’s disease (AD) continuum. The impact of tracers’ characteristics for Braak staging using tau‐PET remains unclear. Therefore, we performed a head‐to‐head comparison of Braak staging using first‐ and second‐generation tau‐PET tracers.MethodWe assessed 51 cognitively unimpaired (CU) and 49 cognitively impaired participants (mean [SD] age 69.4 [7.5] years) with at least two tau‐PET ligands ([18F]MK6240, [18F]AV1451, and/or [18F]RO948) at McGill University, as part of the HEAD study. We calculated standardized uptake value ratios (SUVR) in Braak‐like regions of interest (ROI) for each ligand and investigated their association using Spearman’s correlation. Thresholds defined the presence of tauopathy in each Braak ROI, which was used to assign a Braak stage to each participant. Finally, we assessed the agreement between the Braak staging provided by each tracer, both for the traditional (using separate Braak stages – 0, I, II, III, IV, V, and VI) and simplified (using joint Braak stages – 0, I‐II, III‐IV, and V‐VI) frameworks.ResultIn all Braak ROIs, we found positive correlations between the SUVR values of the three tracers (Figure 1). The strongest correlation was between [18F]MK6240 and [18F]RO948 in Braak II (r=0.94), and the weakest between [18F]AV1451 and [18F]RO948 in VI (r=0.51). Inter‐tracer agreement regarding the latest stage of abnormality was substantial or nearly perfect between pairs of tracers but moderate between the three tracers (Figure 2A). The simplified framework presented greater agreement compared to traditional Braak staging, except between [18F]MK6240 and [18F]RO948. At the ROI level, the lowest agreements were observed for Braak II and I‐II, when [18F]MK6240 and [18F]RO948 were compared to [18F]AV1451 (Figure 2B‐C). [18F]AV1451 had the highest probability of overestimating the Braak stage assigned by [18F]MK6240 and by [18F]RO948, especially at earlier stages (Figure 3).ConclusionThe ligands presented moderate to nearly perfect agreement for in vivo staging of AD severity. Off‐target binding of [18F]AV1451 to the choroid plexus might explain disagreements at early stages. Overall, slight improvements in agreements were achieved with the simplified framework, as observed in histopathological staging.

AbstractBackgroundTau‐PET tracers allow for in vivo Braak staging of individuals in the Alzheimer’s disease (AD) continuum. The impact of tracers’ characteristics for Braak staging using tau‐PET remains unclear. Therefore, we performed a head‐to‐head comparison of Braak staging using first‐ and second‐generation tau‐PET tracers.MethodWe assessed 51 cognitively unimpaired (CU) and 49 cognitively impaired participants (mean [SD] age 69.4 [7.5] years) with at least two tau‐PET ligands ([18F]MK6240, [18F]AV1451, and/or [18F]RO948) at McGill University, as part of the HEAD study. We calculated standardized uptake value ratios (SUVR) in Braak‐like regions of interest (ROI) for each ligand and investigated their association using Spearman’s correlation. Thresholds defined the presence of tauopathy in each Braak ROI, which was used to assign a Braak stage to each participant. Finally, we assessed the agreement between the Braak staging provided by each tracer, both for the traditional (using separate Braak stages – 0, I, II, III, IV, V, and VI) and simplified (using joint Braak stages – 0, I‐II, III‐IV, and V‐VI) frameworks.ResultIn all Braak ROIs, we found positive correlations between the SUVR values of the three tracers (Fig. 1). The strongest correlation was between [18F]MK6240 and [18F]RO948 in Braak II (r=0.94), and the weakest between [18F]AV1451 and [18F]RO948 in VI (r=0.51). Inter‐tracer agreement regarding the latest stage of abnormality was substantial or nearly perfect between pairs of tracers but moderate between the three tracers (Fig. 2A). The simplified framework presented greater agreement compared to traditional Braak staging, except between [18F]MK6240 and [18F]RO948. At the ROI level, the lowest agreements were observed for Braak II and I‐II, when [18F]MK6240 and [18F]RO948 were compared to [18F]AV1451 (Fig. 2B‐C). [18F]AV1451 had the highest probability of overestimating the Braak stage assigned by [18F]MK6240 and by [18F]RO948, especially at earlier stages (Fig. 3).ConclusionThe ligands presented moderate to nearly perfect agreement for in vivo staging of AD severity. Off‐target binding of [18F]AV1451 to the choroid plexus might explain disagreements at early stages. Overall, slight improvements in agreements were achieved with the simplified framework, as observed in histopathological staging.