Citations

ObjectivesTo assess [18F]AV‐1451 tau‐PET (positron emission tomography) uptake patterns across the primary progressive aphasia (PPA) variants (logopenic, semantic, and agrammatic), examine regional uptake patterns of [18F]AV‐1451 independent of clinical diagnosis, and compare the diagnostic utility of [18F]AV‐1451, [18F]‐fluorodeoxygluclose (FDG)‐PET and MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) to differentiate the PPA variants.MethodsWe performed statistical parametric mapping of [18F]AV‐1451 across 40 PPA patients (logopenic‐PPA = 14, semantic‐PPA = 13, and agrammatic‐PPA = 13) compared to 80 cognitively normal, Pittsburgh compound B–negative controls, age and gender matched 2:1. Principal component analysis of regional [18F]AV‐1451 tau‐PET standard uptake value ratio was performed to understand underlying patterns of [18F]AV‐1451 uptake independent of clinical diagnosis. Penalized multinomial regression analyses were utilized to assess diagnostic utility.ResultsLogopenic‐PPA showed striking uptake throughout neocortex, particularly temporoparietal, compared to controls, semantic‐PPA, and agrammatic‐PPA. Semantic‐PPA and agrammatic‐PPA showed milder patterns of focal [18F]AV‐1451 uptake. Semantic‐PPA showed elevated uptake (left>right) in anteromedial temporal lobes, compared to controls and agrammatic‐PPA. Agrammatic‐PPA showed elevated uptake (left>right) throughout prefrontal white matter and in subcortical gray matter structures, compared to controls and semantic‐PPA. The principal component analysis of regional [18F]AV‐1451 indicated two primary dimensions, a severity dimension that distinguished logopenic‐PPA from agrammatic‐PPA and semantic‐PPA, and a frontal versus temporal contrast that distinguishes agrammatic‐PPA and semantic‐PPA cases. Diagnostic utility of [18F]AV‐1451was superior to MRI and at least equal to FDG‐PET.Interpretation[18F]AV‐1451binding characteristics differ across the PPA variants and were excellent at distinguishing between the variants. [18F]AV‐1451binding characteristics were as good or better than other brain imaging modalities utilized in clinical practice, suggesting that [18F]AV‐1451 may have clinical diagnostic utility in PPA. Ann Neurol 2018 Ann Neurol 2018;83:599–611

AbstractIntroductionMedial temporal lobe (MTL) uptake on tau–positron emission tomography (PET) is seen not only in Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia but also in the aging population. The relationship of these findings to the development of AD dementia needs to be better understood.MethodsTau‐PET with AV‐1451 was performed on 576 cognitively unimpaired (CU) participants aged 50–94 years. The number of CUs with and without abnormal MTL regions and those with or without extra‐MTL abnormalities was determined. Left and right regions were compared within each subject.ResultsOf CUs, 58% (334/576) had abnormal tau‐PET findings. MTL abnormalities were present in 41% (238/576) of subjects.DiscussionMTL tau‐PET signal is often associated with abnormal extra‐MTL tau‐PET signal in CU participants and may represent neurofibrillary tangle development that could identify participants most likely to develop AD dementia. Tau‐PET signal exclusively outside of the MTL is seen in 17% of CU participants and could be the initial findings in participants in different AD dementia pathways. Significant (P < .001) differences in tau–standardized uptake value ratio between sides were noted in 26 of 41 examined brain regions implicating further study of side‐specific deficits.

ObjectiveTo use a cluster analysis of [18F]AV‐1451 tau‐PET data to determine how subjects with Alzheimer's disease (AD) vary in the relative involvement of the entorhinal cortex and neocortex, and determine whether relative involvement of these two regions can help explain variability in age and clinical phenotype in AD.MethodsWe calculated [18F]AV‐1451 uptake in entorhinal cortex and neocortex in 62 amyloid‐positive AD patients (39 typical and 23 atypical presentation). tau‐PET (positron emission tomography) values were normalized to the cerebellum to create standard uptake value ratios (SUVRs). tau‐PET SUVRs were log‐transformed and clustered blinded to clinical information into three groups using K‐median cluster analysis. Demographics, clinical phenotype, cognitive performance, and apolipoprotein e4 frequency were compared across clusters.ResultsThe cluster analysis identified a cluster with low entorhinal and cortical uptake (ELo/CLo), one with low entorhinal but high cortical uptake (ELo/CHi), and one with high cortical and entorhinal uptake (EHi/CHi). Clinical phenotype differed across clusters, with typical AD most commonly observed in the ELo/CLo and EHi/CHi clusters, and atypical AD most commonly observed in the ELo/CHi cluster. The ELo/CLo cluster had an older age at PET and onset than the other clusters. Apolipoprotein e4 frequency was lower in the ELo/CHi cluster. The EHi/CHi cluster had the worst memory impairment, whereas the ELo/CHi cluster had the worst impairment in nonmemory domains.InterpretationThis study demonstrates considerable variability in [18F]AV‐1451 tau‐PET uptake in AD, but shows that a straightforward clustering based on entorhinal and cortical uptake maps well onto age and clinical presentation in AD. Ann Neurol 2018 Ann Neurol 2018;83:248–257