Back to Authors

Frisoni, Giovanni B.

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7075-7082

Mayo Clinic

University of Geneva

Citations 27

Operationalizing protocol differences for EADC‐ADNI manual hippocampal segmentation
Boccardi, Marina , Bocchetta, Martina , Ganzola, Rossana , Robitaille, Nicolas , Redolfi, Alberto , Duchesne, Simon , Jack, Clifford R. , Frisoni, Giovanni B. , Initiative, EADC‐ADNI Working Group on The Harmonized Protocol for Manual Hippocampal Segmentation and for the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging, Bartzokis, George, Csernansky, John G., deToledo‐Morrell, Leyla, Lehéricy, Stéphane , Malykhin, Nikolai , Pantel, Johannes, Pruessner, Jens C. , Watson, Craig, Boccardi, Marina , Frisoni, Giovanni B. , Initiative, EADC‐ADNI Working Group on The Harmonized Protocol for Manual Hippocampal Segmentation and for the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging, Leon, Mony J. de , Killiany, Ronald , Soininen, Hilkka S. , Jack, Clifford R , Bocchetta, Martina

Alzheimer's & Dementia | May 21, 2013 | Volume: 11 | Issue: 2 | Pages: 184-194

10.1016/j.jalz.2013.03.001 Get It

AbstractBackgroundHippocampal volumetry on magnetic resonance imaging is recognized as an Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarker, and manual segmentation is the gold standard for measurement. However, a standard procedure is lacking. We operationalize and quantitate landmark differences to help a Delphi panel converge on a set of landmarks.MethodsOne hundred percent of anatomic landmark variability across 12 different protocols for manual segmentation was reduced into four segmentation units (the minimum hippocampus, the alveus/fimbria, the tail, and the subiculum), which were segmented on magnetic resonance images by expert raters to estimate reliability and AD‐related atrophy.ResultsIntra‐ and interrater reliability were more than 0.96 and 0.92, respectively, except for the alveus/fimbria, which were 0.86 and 0.77, respectively. Of all AD‐related atrophy, the minimum hippocampus contributed to 67%; tail, 24%; alveus/fimbria, 4%; and the subiculum, 5%.ConclusionsAnatomic landmark variability in available protocols can be reduced to four discrete and measurable segmentation units. Their quantitative assessment will help a Delphi panel to define a set of landmarks for a harmonized protocol.
Advancing Alzheimer's disease diagnosis, treatment, and care: Recommendations from the Ware Invitational Summit
Naylor, Mary D. , Karlawish, Jason , Arnold, Steven E. , Khachaturian, Ara S. , Khachaturian, Zaven S., Baumgart, Matthew, Banerjee, Sube , Beck, Cornelia, Blennow, Kaj , Brookmeyer, Ron , Brunden, Kurt R. , Buckwalter, Kathleen C., Comer, Meryl, Covinsky, Kenneth E. , Feinberg, Lynn Friss, Frisoni, Giovanni B. , Guimarães, Renato Maia, Gwyther, Lisa P., Hutton, Michael , Kawas, Claudia H. , Kent, David M. , Kuller, Lewis H. , Langa, Kenneth M. , Mahley, Robert W. , Maslow, Katie, Masters, Colin L. , Meier, Diane E. , Neumann, Peter J. , Paul, Steven M., Petersen, Ronald C. , Sager, Mark A., Sano, Mary , Schenk, Dale, Soares, Holly , Stahl, Sidney M., Stern, Yaakov , Weir, David R. , Trojanowski, John Q. , Frisoni, Giovanni B. , Lee, Virginia M.‐Y. , Green, Colin Richard , Hefti, Franz F. , Sperling, Reisa Anne , Deerlin, Vivianna M. Van , Wolk, David A. , Stern, Yaakov , Masters, Colin L , Kent, David M

Alzheimer's & Dementia | September 7, 2012 | Volume: 8 | Issue: 5 | Pages: 445-452

10.1016/j.jalz.2012.08.001 Get It

AbstractTo address the pending public health crisis due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related neurodegenerative disorders, the Marian S. Ware Alzheimer Program at the University of Pennsylvania held a meeting entitled “State of the Science Conference on the Advancement of Alzheimer's Diagnosis, Treatment and Care,” on June 21‐22, 2012. The meeting comprised four workgroups focusing on Biomarkers; Clinical Care and Health Services Research; Drug Development; and Health Economics, Policy, and Ethics. The workgroups shared, discussed, and compiled an integrated set of priorities, recommendations, and action plans, which are presented in this article.
EFNS task force: the use of neuroimaging in the diagnosis of dementia
Filippi, Massimo , Agosta, Federica , Barkhof, Frederik , Dubois, Bruno , Fox, Nick C. , Frisoni, Giovanni B. , Johannsen, Peter , Nestor, Peter J. , Scheltens, Philip , Sorbi, Sandro , Thompson, Paul M. , Wahlund, Lars‐Olof , Frisoni, Giovanni B. , Jack, Clifford R. , Miller, Bruce L. , Teipel, Stefan Johannes , Thompson, Paul M , Filippi, Massimo , Barkhof, Frederik , Scheltens, Philip , Wahlund, Lars-Olof , Fox, Nick C , Agosta, Federica

European Journal of Neurology | August 20, 2012 | Volume: 19 | Issue: 12 | Pages: 1487-1501

10.1111/j.1468-1331.2012.03859.x Get It

Background and purposeThe European Federation of the Neurological Societies (EFNS) guidelines on the use of neuroimaging in the diagnosis and management of dementia are designed to revise and expand previous EFNS recommendations for the diagnosis and management of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and to provide an overview of the evidence for the use of neuroimaging techniques in non‐AD dementias, as well as general recommendations that apply to all types of dementia in clinical practice.MethodsThe task force working group reviewed evidence from original research articles, meta‐analyses and systematic reviews, published before April 2012. The evidence was classified, and consensus recommendations were given and graded according to the EFNS guidance regulations.ResultsStructural imaging, which should be performed at least once in the diagnostic work‐up of patients with cognitive impairment, serves to exclude other potentially treatable diseases, to recognize vascular lesions and to identify specific findings to help distinguish different forms of neurodegenerative types of dementia. Although typical cases of dementia may not benefit from routine functional imaging, these tools are recommended in those cases where diagnosis remains in doubt after clinical and structural imaging work‐up and in particular clinical settings. Amyloid imaging is likely to find clinical utility in several fields, including the stratification of patients with mild cognitive impairment into those with and without underlying AD and the evaluation of atypical AD presentations.ConclusionsA number of recommendations and good practice points are made to improve the diagnosis of AD and other dementias.
Steps to standardization and validation of hippocampal volumetry as a biomarker in clinical trials and diagnostic criterion for Alzheimer's disease
Jack, Clifford R. , Barkhof, Frederik , Bernstein, Matt A. , Cantillon, Marc, Cole, Patricia E., DeCarli, Charles , Dubois, Bruno , Duchesne, Simon , Fox, Nick C. , Frisoni, Giovanni B. , Hampel, Harald , Hill, David , Johnson, Keith A. , Scheltens, Philip , Schwarz, Adam J. , Suhy, Joyce, Thompson, Paul M. , Weiner, Michael W. , Foster, Norman L. , Frisoni, Giovanni B. , Mangin, Jean‐François , Sperling, Reisa Anne , DeCarli, Charles , Bernstein, Matt A , Jack, Clifford R , Thompson, Paul M , Barkhof, Frederik , Scheltens, Philip , Fox, Nick C

Alzheimer's & Dementia | July 25, 2011 | Volume: 7 | Issue: 4 | Pages: 474

10.1016/j.jalz.2011.04.007 Get It

BackgroundThe promise of Alzheimer's disease biomarkers has led to their incorporation in new diagnostic criteria and in therapeutic trials; however, significant barriers exist to widespread use. Chief among these is the lack of internationally accepted standards for quantitative metrics. Hippocampal volumetry is the most widely studied quantitative magnetic resonance imaging measure in Alzheimer's disease and thus represents the most rational target for an initial effort at standardization.Methods and ResultsThe authors of this position paper propose a path toward this goal. The steps include the following: (1) Establish and empower an oversight board to manage and assess the effort, (2) adopt the standardized definition of anatomic hippocampal boundaries on magnetic resonance imaging arising from the European Alzheimer's Disease Centers–Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative hippocampal harmonization effort as a reference standard, (3) establish a scientifically appropriate, publicly available reference standard data set based on manual delineation of the hippocampus in an appropriate sample of subjects (Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative), and (4) define minimum technical and prognostic performance metrics for validation of new measurement techniques using the reference standard data set as a benchmark.ConclusionsAlthough manual delineation of the hippocampus is the best available reference standard, practical application of hippocampal volumetry will require automated methods. Our intent was to establish a mechanism for credentialing automated software applications to achieve internationally recognized accuracy and prognostic performance standards that lead to the systematic evaluation and then widespread acceptance and use of hippocampal volumetry. The standardization and assay validation process outlined for hippocampal volumetry was envisioned as a template that could be applied to other imaging biomarkers.
The Alzheimer's Association external quality control program for cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers
Mattsson, Niklas , Andréasson, Ulf , Batish, Sat Dev, Bernardini, Sergio , Bocchio‐Chiavetto, Luisella , Blankenstein, Marinus A. , Carrillo, María C. , Chalbot, Sonia, Coart, Els, Chiasserini, Davide , Cutler, Neal E., Dahlfors, Gunilla, Duller, Stefan, Fagan, Anne M. , Frisoni, Giovanni B. , Galimberti, Daniela , Hampel, Harald , Handberg, Aase , Heneka, Michael T. , Herskovits, A. Zara , Herukka, Sanna‐Kaisa , Humpel, Christian , Iqbal, Khalid , Kaeser, Stephan A. , Kaiser, Elmar, Kapaki, Elisabeth, Kidd, Daniel, Klivènyi, Péter , Knudsen, Cindy Soendersoe, Kummer, Markus P. , Lui, James, Lladó, Albert , Li, Qiao‐Xin , Martins, Ralph N. , Masters, Colin L. , McAuliffe, John C., Mercken, Marc, Moghekar, Abhay , Molinuevo, José Luís , Montine, Thomas J. , Nowatzke, William, O’Brien, Richard , Otto, Markus , Parnetti, Lucilla , Petersen, Ronald C. , Prvulovic, David, Reus, Herman P.M. de, Scarpini, Elio , Stefani, Alessandro , Schröder, Johannes , Shaw, Leslie M. , Skinningsrud, Anders, Skrogstad, Brith, Spreer, Annette, Trojanowski, John Q. , Tumani, Hayrettin , Umek, Robert M., Broeck, Bianca Van, Vanderstichele, Hugo, Vécsei, László , Blennow, Kaj , Frisoni, Giovanni B. , Persson, Staffan , Arai, Hiroyuki N. , Forlenza, Orestes Vicente , Galasko, Douglas , Holtzman, David M. , Hyman, Bradley T. , Jucker, Mathias , Lewczuk, Piotr , Paraskevas, George P. , Rissman, Robert A. , Soininen, Hilkka S. , Talib, Leda Leme , Teunissen, Charlotte E. , Verbeek, Marcel M. , Windisch, Manfred , Zhang, Jing , Zetterberg, Henrik , Parnetti, Lucilla , Molinuevo, José Luis , Masters, Colin L , Otto, Markus , Galimberti, Daniela

Alzheimer's & Dementia | July 25, 2011 | Volume: 7 | Issue: 4 | Pages: 386

10.1016/j.jalz.2011.05.2243 Get It

BackgroundThe cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers amyloid β (Aβ)‐42, total‐tau (T‐tau), and phosphorylated‐tau (P‐tau) demonstrate good diagnostic accuracy for Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, there are large variations in biomarker measurements between studies, and between and within laboratories. The Alzheimer's Association has initiated a global quality control program to estimate and monitor variability of measurements, quantify batch‐to‐batch assay variations, and identify sources of variability. In this article, we present the results from the first two rounds of the program.MethodsThe program is open for laboratories using commercially available kits for Aβ, T‐tau, or P‐tau. CSF samples (aliquots of pooled CSF) are sent for analysis several times a year from the Clinical Neurochemistry Laboratory at the Mölndal campus of the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Each round consists of three quality control samples.ResultsForty laboratories participated. Twenty‐six used INNOTEST enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay kits, 14 used Luminex xMAP with the INNO‐BIA AlzBio3 kit (both measure Aβ‐(1‐42), P‐tau(181P), and T‐tau), and 5 used Meso Scale Discovery with the Aβ triplex (AβN‐42, AβN‐40, and AβN‐38) or T‐tau kits. The total coefficients of variation between the laboratories were 13% to 36%. Five laboratories analyzed the samples six times on different occasions. Within‐laboratory precisions differed considerably between biomarkers within individual laboratories.ConclusionsMeasurements of CSF AD biomarkers show large between‐laboratory variability, likely caused by factors related to analytical procedures and the analytical kits. Standardization of laboratory procedures and efforts by kit vendors to increase kit performance might lower variability, and will likely increase the usefulness of CSF AD biomarkers.
Harmonization of magnetic resonance‐based manual hippocampal segmentation: A mandatory step for wide clinical use
Frisoni, Giovanni B. , Jack, Clifford R. , Frisoni, Giovanni B. , Jack, Clifford R

Alzheimer's & Dementia | March 16, 2011 | Volume: 7 | Issue: 2 | Pages: 171-174

10.1016/j.jalz.2010.06.007 Get It

Hippocampal atrophy is a marker of disease state and progression in Alzheimer's disease. The gold standard to measure hippocampal volume is through manual segmentation. A number of protocols to measure hippocampal volume through manual segmentation have been developed, but the marked heterogeneity of anatomical landmarks has given rise to wide variability of volume estimates. With the aim of fostering the use of hippocampal volume in routine clinical settings, an international task force is currently working on developing a harmonized protocol that will resolve and reduce the present heterogeneity. The task force will then validate the harmonized protocol, develop harmonized probabilistic hippocampal maps, and develop illustrative and educational material on the use of the harmonized protocol and maps.
How fast will it go, doc?
Frisoni, Giovanni B. , Whitwell, Jennifer L. , Frisoni, Giovanni B.

Neurology | June 2, 2008 | Volume: 70 | Issue: 23 | Pages: 2194-2195

10.1212/01.wnl.0000313844.18381.a9 Get It