Medeiros, Marina Scop

Abstract Background Tau PET measures are inherently continuous and applying dichotomized thresholds introduces conceptual and analytical idiosyncrasies. Understanding the limitations in the transition from tau‐negative to tau‐positive classifications is crucial for the effective use of these thresholds. This study aims to determine the confidence levels of tau PET thresholds of abnormality for different tau PET tracers by characterizing their "gray zone" using the universal tau PET scale (Uniτ, www.unitau.app ). Method We evaluated 485 individuals across the aging and AD spectrum from the HEAD study, with head‐to‐head scans for MK6240 and Flortaucipir. Uniτ estimates were derived from the Meta‐Temporal ROI. Tau positivity (T+) was defined as Uniτ values exceeding the mean plus 3 SD of individuals younger than 28 years ( n = 24). Two physicians independently performed a visual assessment of tau positivity for each tracer, with agreement indicating clear tau pathology (TVR+). Logistic regression was used to estimate the probability of TVR+ across Uniτ values for each tracer ( n = 189, CU elderly Aβ‐ and CI Aβ+). Individuals were classified as negative, positive, or within a "gray zone" between the most liberal T+ threshold and varying TVR+ probability thresholds (50%, 75%, 90%, 95%, and 99%). Result The Uniτ gray zone, defined as a function of TVR+ probabilities, demonstrated consistency between the two tracers, with differences observed only in the decimal range. The most liberal Uniτ threshold for T+ was 11.0 for both MK6240 and Flortaucipir, closely matching the 50% TVR+ probability threshold (11.1 for MK6240 and 11.7 for Flortaucipir). Higher TVR+ probabilities corresponded to increased Uniτ values with MK6240 and Flortaucipir showing near‐identical values between the tracers: 14.2 and 14.8 for 75%, 17.3 and 17.9 for 90%, 19.4 and 19.9 for 95%, and 24.1 and 24.6 for 99%, respectively (Figure 1). In total, 26 participants fell within the gray zone for MK6240, compared to 47 participants for Flortaucipir. Conclusion These findings highlight the potential of Uniτ to provide a standardized approach for assessing tau positivity across tracers. By combining quantitative Uniτ measures with visual assessments, we enhance the understanding of tau positivity certainty, particularly in the transition between negative and positive classifications.

Abstract Background The Alzheimer's disease (AD) Braak staging is a key framework for classifying tau pathology progression in AD based on histopathological post‐mortem brain examinations. However, adapting it to PET imaging can be challenging due to differences in tracer uptake patterns and binding properties, which affect sensitivity, specificity, and regional staging. This study compares Braak staging across four tau PET tracers: Flortaucipir, MK6240, PI2620, and RO948. Methods We assessed 90 participants across the AD spectrum (46 CU, 31 MCI, 13 dementia; mean age 66.1 ± 7.8) using Aβ PET and four tau PET tracers: (Flortaucipir, MK6240, PI2620, and RO948). Braak positivity was defined based on Aβ− CU individuals (mean +2.5 SD, SUVR). To evaluate systematic bias and agreement between tracers, we computed pairwise differences at corresponding Braak stage estimates and applied the Bland‐Altman method to assess mean bias and limits of agreement. Additionally, Tau PET Braak region trajectories were modeled as functions of Aβ burden (Centiloid scale) using the Lowess method. Results Braak stage trajectories as a function of Aβ differ depending on the tracer and the sequential order of abnormality is highly variable. For instance, while for MK6240, RO948 and PI2620, Braak I is the first region to became abnormal, for Flortaucipir the earliest region to became abnormal is Braak IV (Figure 1). This variable pattern of abnormality impacts in the concordance of Braak staging between tracers with the highest Braak staging agreement resulting in concordance levels of approximately 70%. The highest levels of agreement between tracers usually happen at Braak 0 or Braak IV‐V, with intermediate stages showing very low concordance (Figure 2). The Bland‐Altman analysis identified wide limits of agreement, suggesting high variability and high tracer‐specific differences (Figure 3). On the other hand, it also identified that mean differences between tracers were small, indicating minimal systematic bias. Conclusion These preliminary findings reveal discrepancies in Braak staging when comparing Flortaucipir, MK6240, PI2620 and RO948. These findings suggest that while the tracers provide comparable stages on average, they may not be fully interchangeable in individual cases.

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.

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.

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‐ß (Aß) 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 CUAß‐.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 CUAß‐, [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 CUAß‐. [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.

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 Aß and tau positive (A+/T+). These CU A+/T+ individuals are likely on the path to developing AD dementia.

AbstractBackgroundUtilizing PET amyloid‐beta (Aß) 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 Aß 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, Aß‐PET, MRI. SUVRs used inferior cerebellar gray as reference. Participants were categorized in Aß 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.