Pascual, Belén

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.

AbstractBackgroundThe HEAD study focuses on collecting an extensive dataset from various tau‐PET tracers, aiming to establish robust anchor values, which are essential for harmonizing tau‐PET measurements. Here, we aim to showcase the capability of converting 3D tau‐PET images into a common scale using the Universal Tau‐PET Scale, Uniτ (tau), and to use these 3D images to subsequently obtain ROIs as needed.MethodsWe assessed 185 individuals across the aging and AD spectrum from the HEAD study, with [18F]Flortaucipir and [18F]MK‐6240 tau‐PET tracers. Tau‐PET SUVR images were standardized to a common 8mm FWHM, using the inferior cerebellar gray matter as the reference region. We generated Uniτ Tau‐PET 3D images using a single formula based on Meta‐temporal parameters in two steps: first, within‐tracer anchoring based on young (<25 years) and cognitively impaired individuals; second, between‐tracer anchoring using a piecewise transformation from [18F]Flortaucipir to [18F]MK‐6240, with smoothing at the piecewise inflection point. Subsequently, we extracted mean Uniτ values from these 3D images for key ROIs, including meta‐temporal, mesial, temporo‐parietal, frontal, and Braak stages III‐VI. Finally, we correlated Uniτ values across ROIs between the two tracers to evaluate the accuracy of estimates from the voxel‐wise transformation.ResultsThe original SUVR images present large differences between the two tau‐PET tracers (Figure 1). However, upon applying the Uniτ piecewise transformation with smoothing to all brain voxels, we were able to reasonably harmonize these images to the Uniτ scale, substantially reducing visual variability. Notably, the mean Uniτ values for the ROIs extracted from these harmonized 3D tau‐PET brain images demonstrated a high level of association between the two tracers (Figure 2). Furthermore, estimates generated from ROIs or extracted from our 3D parametric Uniτ model yielded identical estimates (Figure 3).ConclusionThe strong associations between tracers after directly harmonizing 3D images to Uniτ scale using the piecewise transformation with smoothing, underscore the effectiveness of the proposed method. This approach provides a reliable and standardized way to compare tau‐PET data across different tracers. Our results indicate the feasibility of harmonizing 3D tau‐PET images without relying on pre‐established ROIs, overcoming the limitation of restricting the analysis to only few brain regions.

AbstractBackgroundTau PET provides continuous measurements of tau tangle pathology in the human brain. However, establishing cutoffs is crucial for selecting individuals for treatment in clinical trials or practice. In the absence of postmortem data, PET cutoffs must be established using statistical methods based on what is considered normal tracer uptake. In this study, we tested the impact of various methods to determine tau positivity using two different tau PET tracers in individuals scanned head‐to‐head.MethodsWe studied 147 individuals from Head‐to‐Head Harmonization of Tau Tracers in Alzheimer's Disease (HEAD) study with tau tangle PET scans with [18F]Flortaucipir and [18F]MK‐6240, and amyloid‐β (Aβ) PET. Tau deposition was measured with the standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) of each agent in the Medial Temporal Lobe (MTL) and the Entorhinal Cortex (EC). To determine Tau positivity three different methods were used: >2.5 standard deviations (SD) than the mean of the young, >1.5 SD mean of the cognitively unimpaired (CU) and >1.5 SD mean of CUAβ‐.ResultsDemographic characteristics of the study population are reported in Table 1. Using the cutoff >2.5 SD mean of young, [18F]Flortaucipir was positive in 35 (23.8%) and 69 (46.9%) individuals in the EC and MTL, respectively. [18F]MK‐6240 was positive in 49 (33.3%) and 58 (39.5%) individuals in EC and in MTL. Using >1.5 SD mean of CUAβ‐, [18F]Flortaucipir was positive in 38 (25.9%) and 45 (30.6%) individuals in EC and MTL, while [18F]MK‐6240 was positive in 51 (34.7%) and 50 (34.0%) in EC and in MTL (Figure 1).ConclusionsOur findings indicate variations in tau positivity when employing different methods based on either the young or CUAβ‐. [18F]Flortaucipir exhibited a higher rate of positive results when the method based on young individuals was applied in the MTL. Conversely, [18F]MK‐6240 showed more consistent and generally higher positivity when other methods were used for cutoff determination and/or in the EC region. Further research with a larger sample size is required to gain a better understanding of the optimal cutoff determination methods for these tracers.

AbstractBackgroundUtilizing PET amyloid‐beta (Aβ) and tau for staging Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) has demonstrated potential in identifying individuals with varying degrees of disease severity, applicable to both clinical trials and practice. However, the diverse binding characteristics of tau tracers pose challenges to the application of this staging across different ligands. In this study, we evaluate a novel staging framework proposed by the AA working group, employing Aβ PET and either [18F]MK6240 or [18F]Flortaucipir in individuals participating in a head‐to‐head study of tau PET tracers. This will provide insights into the robustness of this framework when applied across different tau ligands.MethodWe evaluated 154 people (89 CU and 65 CI), with MK6240, Flortaucipir, Aβ‐PET, MRI. SUVRs used inferior cerebellar gray as reference. Participants were categorized in Aβ positivity(A), using visual read, and tau positivity (T) in medial temporal lobe(MTL) and neocortex(NEO). Tau MTL(TMTL) and NEO positivity were defined as average +3 SD of youngs. NEO moderate(TMOD) and high(THIGH) was defined as below and above median SUVR of NEO‐positive individuals. Individuals were grouped as: A‐T‐, A+T‐, A+TMTL+(early), A+TMOD+(intermediary), and A+THIGH+(advanced).ResultsWe found that the distribution of the number of individuals across the five AD stages was comparable when using both MK6240 and Flortaucipir tracers (Figure 1). However, upon examining the concordance within each group, we found a low concordance of 30% (3/10) between tracers in the early tau stage (A+TMTL+). Concordance increased in the intermediary stage A+TMOD+, with a rate of 65% (9/14), and further increased to 79% (11/14) in the advanced stage (A+THIGH+). The A+T‐ group exhibited the highest concordance between tracer results, at 95% (21/22).ConclusionOur findings indicate that the application of this framework across different populations using different tau tracers can lead to a compatible distribution among groups. However, in a direct comparison, we noted that this did not necessarily result in high concordance between groups, as group shifts were observed that depended on the cutoffs used (data not shown). These results emphasize the necessity for harmonization of tau PET tracers prior to their utilization for stage determination.

AbstractBackgroundIdentifying individuals’ levels of tau PET pathology could prove to be beneficial in clinical settings, given that emerging therapies aimed reducing Aβ seem to be most effective in these individuals. Here, we present the cases of four patients who visited the memory clinic at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center between June and December 2023 and underwent both Aβ and tau‐PET scans.MethodThese individuals had standard clinical and cognitive outcomes, typical blood tests order in patients with memory impairment, MRI, and, as part of the HEAD study, PET PIB Aβ and two tau PET tracers (MK6240 and Flortaucipir).ResultAll patients presented a primary complaint of progressive memory decline. The results of their blood count, metabolic panel, TSH, and vitamin B12 tests were unremarkable. Patient 1 had a normal MRI, while Patients 2‐4 exhibited mild ischemic changes (Table 1). All patients tested positive for amyloid PET, supporting the diagnosis of AD. However, their tau PET results varied. Patients 1 (MOCA = 6) and 3 (MOCA =19), who were demented with impaired Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL), tested positive for tau PET with Braak stages V‐VI using both tau PET tracers. Conversely, the mild cognitive impairment (MCI) Patients 2 (MOCA = 19) and 5 (MOCA = 29, neuropsych evaluation indicating MCI), who exhibited low tau levels, tested positive for MK6240 but negative for FTP.ConclusionAll four patients exhibited symptoms and signs consistent with typical amnestic AD presentation, which were confirmed using Aβ PET. Aβ PET presented a similar pattern across all individuals (Figure 1). Tau PET demonstrated greater variability, with lower levels in less cognitively impaired patients. Although tau PET can potentially be useful in identifying individuals in the earliest stages that would benefit from Aβ‐lowering therapies, this small series did not exclude that a low MOCA score combined with Aβ PET could achieve a similar outcome. Larger samples in real‐world clinical contexts are necessary to identify individuals with discrepancies between tau PET uptake and cognitive tests. This would reinforce the need for tau PET markers as complementary tests, singularly capable of identifying individuals across various biological stages to indicate therapies in clinical practice.

AbstractBackgroundTau PET tracers are employed to measure the accumulation of tau in vivo in the brain. Each tau tracer possesses unique characteristics, including binding affinity, sensitivity, and specificity to tau aggregates. This study leverages the HEAD study dataset, which is currently performing baseline tau PET tracers and conducting multiple clinical and cognitive assessments. The objective of this study is to elucidate the relationship between tau PET tracers [18F]Flortaucipir and [18F]MK6240 and commonly used tests of general cognitive performance.MethodsWe assessed 170 individuals (107 cognitively unimpaired, and 63 cognitively impaired) with available PET [18F]Flortaucipir [18F]MK6240 and cognitive assessments (MoCA, MMSE, and CDR‐SB). We calculated tau PET SUVR for [18F]Flortaucipir and [18F]MK6240 using the inferior cerebellar grey matter as a reference. Pearson correlations were performed between SUVR values for each Braak region and MoCA, MMSE, and CDR‐SB. In addition, linear regression models accounting for age, sex, years of education, HEAD site, and diagnosis were used to estimate the relationships. The Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) was utilized to evaluate the models, with smaller AIC values signifying better performance.ResultsPerson correlation coefficients (r), which were calculated without considering any covariates, demonstrated higher numerical values between [18F]MK6240 and the scores of MoCA, MMSE, and CDR‐SB across the Braak regions (Figure 1). Similarly, when we performed linear regressions that accounted for relevant covariates, we found that the [18F]MK6240 SUVR in Braak 1 and Braak 4 regions exhibited a stronger association with cognitive tests than in other Braak regions or any region with [18F]Flortaucipir SUVR (Figure 2).ConclusionsBoth [18F]Flortaucipir and [18F]MK6240 SUVR demonstrated a robust association with tests of general cognitive performance commonly used in AD research and clinical practice. Generally, Braak regions 1 and 4 exhibited a stronger association with general cognitive performance using all tests, whereas Braak regions 5‐6 showed the weakest association.

Abstract Background The HEAD study aims to collect a large dataset of multiple tau‐PET tracers to provide robust anchor values for tau‐PET harmonization. Here, we tested the hypothesis that anchoring two tau tracer uptake values using head‐to‐head measurements has the potential to generate an accurate universal tau‐PET scale, named Uniτ(tau). Methods We assessed 200 individuals across the aging and AD spectrum (Training: HEAD data freeze 2.0, n=185; Testing: UPitt dataset (Gogola et al.), n=15) with [ 18 F]Flortaucipir and [ 18 F]MK‐6240 tau‐PET. SUVRs were processed to a common 8mm FWHM, with inferior cerebellar gray matter as the reference region (Pascoal et al.). Uniτ explored two anchoring/harmonization methods. First, we examined within‐tracer anchoring by creating anchor values based on the mean SUVR of Youngs (<25 years) and 95th percentile voxels from cognitively impaired individuals. Second, we explored within‐ plus between‐tracer anchoring, employing linear (e.g., piecewise) and non‐linear regressions. To address the inherent problem of discontinuity of piecewise transformations, we implemented two smoothing methods at the inflection point between equations, transforming them into a continuous function. Results Uniτ scale anchoring within‐tracer resulted in similar estimates for high values, but less accurate in the lower range (Figure 1,2). Anchoring within‐ plus between‐tracer improved estimate consistency, with the piecewise transformation generating the best results. The piecewise smoothing equation yielded estimates comparable to those obtained from the piecewise method without smoothing. This allowed for the use of a single formula. In addition, this leads to more robust results when the goal is to study longitudinal changes in the scale (data not shown). UPitt testing dataset showed similar results to the training set (Figure 3). Conclusion Our preliminary findings suggest that anchoring tau‐PET values both within and between tracers has the potential to harmonize tau‐PET tracers, while preserving their characteristics. Currently, piecewise smoothing is the preferred method for Uniτ, but we are continuously fine‐tuning scale parameters as we acquire more data. The final scale parameters will be determined based on extensive training and testing data from multiple tracers. This cautious methodology holds the promise of delivering reliable, robust, and reproducible results, ensuring safe usage of the scale in clinical trials, and potentially paving the way for future use in clinical practice.

AbstractBackgroundHarmonization of the two most commonly used Tau PET tracers, 18F‐Flortaucipir and 18F‐MK6240 has proven to be complex. Unlike the centiloid scale for amyloid tracers, Tau PET SUVRs of the two tracers are not linearly comparable and vary markedly in dynamic range and sensitivity.MethodTau PET SUVRs for Braak stage (1‐6) in 18F‐MK6240 and 18F‐Flortaucipir were obtained from the Longitudinal multicenter head‐to‐head harmonization of tau‐PET tracers (HEAD) project. For training, we used 13 amyloid confirmed AD, 24 amyloid confirmed MCI and 66 amyloid negative controls. To assess linearity and correlations with neuropsychological tests, we included the training data as well as 74 subjects of unknown or inconsistent amyloid status. Two methods of generating outcome measures were used. (1) As a stand‐in for Tau load, similar to the centiloid scale, a score of 100, 50 or 0 was given to participants of the training set by multiplying CDR score by 100. Hierarchical and ridge regression were performed for each tracer using PET‐Braak SUVRs as predictive variables. Regression coefficients were used to calculate an outcome measure for all participants. (2) Principal component analysis (PCA) was applied for each tracer to the vectors of PET‐Braak regional SUVR of the training subset. Projections along the principal axis were calculated for both modalitiesResultHierarchical, ridge regression and PCA all yielded composite measures with good linear dependence between the two tracers (r2 for hierarchical, ridge and PCA were 0.84, 0.80, 0.80, respectively). Regions remaining in the hierarchical regression analyses varied between tracers: predictive regions for 18F‐MK6240 were PET‐Braak 1, 4 and 5, while 18F‐Flortaucipir used only PET‐Braak 1 and 5. Composite measures correlated well with MMSE and total MOCA score with all composite measures r < ‐0.61.ConclusionWhile both tracers may have different sensitivities to regional Tau distributions and disease stages, weighting multiple regions differently for each tracer gives a composite score linearly comparable across tracers that correlates with neuropsychological measures. This study is limited by the low total tau load and impairment level of all participants and would benefit from the inclusion of patients with more disease progression.

AbstractBackgroundIn vivo studies using the tau PET tracers have shown high performance for the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease dementia and patterns of tracer uptake that resemble those observed in post‐mortem studies. However, tau tracers present distinct patterns of binding that might influence their performance in detecting AD pathology. In a head‐to‐head study, we investigated the performance of [18F]MK6240 and [18F]Flortaucipir for the diagnosis of AD.MethodWe assessed 132 individuals from the HEAD study (58 CU Aβ‐, 15 CU Aβ+, 14 MCI Aβ‐, 32 MCI Aβ+ and 13 AD dementia) with Aβ‐PET, [18F]MK6240 and [18F]Flortaucipir. Voxel‐wise receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC) of the two tau tracers were used to contrast groups provided the area under the curve (AUC) for disease diagnosis or biomarkers positivity.ResultThe brain maps showed numerically higher and more spread AUC for [18F]Flortaucipir to discriminate CU Aβ‐ from CU Aβ+ (Figure 1A). The difference between tracers’ AUC was greater in Braaks IV and V (Figure 2A), both regions that are not expected to have tau accumulation in CU Aβ+ individuals, reflecting a potential off‐target binding for [18F]Flortaucipir. To differentiate CU Aβ‐ from MCI Aβ+ individuals, [18F]MK6240 presented a numerically higher AUC than [18F]Flortaucipir in Braak I and II and similar AUC in other Braak regions (Figure 1B, 2B). We observed a high performance of [18F]MK6240 and [18F]Flortaucipir in differentiating AD dementia from CU Aβ‐ individuals. However, [18F]MK6240 exhibits a higher AUC than [18F]Flortaucipir in all Braak regions, especially Braak V‐VI (Figure 1C, 2C). Finally, [18F]MK6240 presented higher AUC in all Braak regions to discriminate MCI Aβ‐ from MCI Aβ+ individuals (Figure 1D, 2D).ConclusionOur results indicate that [18F]MK6240 and [18F]Flortaucipir present high accuracy to discriminate AD from CU Aβ‐ individuals. However, [18F]MK6240 presents higher AUC to discriminate AD and MCI Aβ+ from CU Aβ‐ individuals than [18F]Flortaucipir. Together, our head‐to‐head study sheds light on the distinct patterns of binding for Tau‐PET tracers.

AbstractBackgroundIdentification of cognitively unimpaired (CU) individuals who may progress to mild cognitive impairment (MCI), is a pressing issue in the Alzheimer’s disease (AD) field, since therapeutic interventions may be more effective in the absence of cognitive impairment and neurodegeneration. CU individuals positive for amyloid and tau PET are very likely in the AD pathway. In out‐patient cognitive screening, we use rapid and simple tests such as The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) ‐ a composite of executive, visuospatial, naming, attention, language, abstraction, delayed recall, and orientation performances. We hypothesize that sub‐categorizing the CU group based on the presence of amyloid (A) and tau (T) pathologies, as measured by PET, can reveal subtle cognitive deficits, even in a clinical test with low sensitivity such as MoCA.MethodWe included 88 CU [defined as CDR global score of 0] older adults with available head‐to‐head MK6240 tau‐PET and Flortaucipir tracers from the ongoing HEAD multi‐site observational study. They also underwent Amyloid PET imaging using PiB or NAV4694. MoCA testing was done around the imaging time. To increase similarity with clinical practice, Amyloid and Tau PET positivity was defined using visual reads. Based on tracer uptake status, we categorized the individuals into A‐T‐, A‐T+, A+T‐ and A‐T‐ groups. Unpaired t‐test and one‐way ANOVA were used to test for significant differences between groups.Result2‐tailed p‐values were significant between the A‐T‐ group and the A+T+ group for MoCA total score [p: 0.0025 and p: 0.0025]. When we stratified MoCA in the different cognitive domains, we found that the results were driven by MoCA (memory) Delayed Recall score [p: 0.0007 and p: 0.0162]. A‐T+ vs A+T+ was also significant [p: 0.0099] for MoCA Delayed Recall. Both tau tracers (MK6240 and Flortaucipir) showed similar performance for determining T+ and identifying cognitive decline.ConclusionMoCA, a simple and commonly administered in‐office neuropsychological test, can detect subtle cognitive dysfunction in CU older adults who are Aβ and tau positive (A+/T+). These CU A+/T+ individuals are likely on the path to developing AD dementia.