Jack, Clifford R.

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 [ 18 F]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 [ 18 F]flortaucipir (ADNI), [ 18 F]MK‐6240 (CPAS), and [ 18 F]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 ([ 18 F]flortaucipir) and AIBL ([ 18 F]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 [ 18 F]flortaucipir and [ 18 F]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 ([ 18 F]PI‐2620) are underway.

Abstract Background T2*‐weighted imaging is of paramount importance for patient treatment eligibility and safety monitoring in anti‐amyloid pharmaceutical clinical trials and clinical care. Recently with the adoption of multi‐echo GRE (GRE) sequences, susceptibility weighted imaging (SWI), and quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) can be obtained in the same acquisition. In 2024, the QSM Consensus Organization Committee released a white paper recommending at least 1 mm isotropic voxel size for QSM. In clinical workflows microbleed detection is performed with higher in‐plane resolution (0.5x0.5mm 2 ), and large out‐of‐plane resolution (∼1.8mm), which was used in the ADNI4 protocol. In the CLARiTI protocol, a 1mm isotropic resolution was adopted. The objective of this work was to compare susceptibility estimates between the ADNI4 (0.5x0.5x1.8mm 3 ) and CLARiTI (1mm 3 ) protocols. Method The ADNI4 and CLARiTI QSM protocols were acquired on forty‐seven subjects (33 cognitively unimpaired (CU), 14 cognitively impaired (CI), in the same scan session. The groups were defined by their Clinical Demential Rating (CDR) global score (CDR global = 0 for CU, and CDR global >= 0.5 for CI subjects). QSM images were generated using publically available software (STI Suite, UC Berkeley). Mean susceptibility values in atlas regions were compared. Result Significant group differences (CU vs. CI) were observed in the fusiform and middle occipital gyrus with the ADNI4 protocol, only in the rectus with the CLARiTI protocol (Figure 1). These three regions are small in size and closer to surface‐air interfaces, which may have impacted estimation accuracy. However, in the substantia nigra and its sub‐regions (pars compacta and pars reticulata), which shows increased susceptibility in Lewy body disease, the ADNI4 and CLARiTI protocols were in good agreement (r 2 > 0.9) (Figure 2). Conclusion Group differences were observed between the ADNI4 and CLARiTI QSM only in 3 small regions close to surface‐air interfaces in this small dataset. The two techniques showed highly correlated (r 2 = 0.93) estimates in the substantia nigra, a region with high susceptibility due to iron deposition. Strong correlations between the two protocols are encouraging. Radiologists have historically preferred submillimeter in‐plane resolution for microbleed detection, which is more time manageable with anisotropic imaging.