Utilizing the Centiloid scale in cross-sectional and longitudinal PiB PET studies

被引:86
|
作者
Su, Yi [1 ,3 ]
Flores, Shaney [1 ]
Hornbeck, Russ C. [1 ]
Speidel, Benjamin [5 ]
Vlassenko, Andrei G. [1 ,3 ]
Gordon, Brian A. [1 ,3 ]
Koeppe, Robert A. [6 ]
Klunk, William E. [7 ]
Xiong, Chengjie [3 ,4 ]
Morris, John C. [2 ,3 ]
Benzinge, Tammie L. S. [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Washington Univ, Dept Radiol, Sch Med, Campus Box 8131,510 S Kingshighway Blvd, St Louis, MO 63110 USA
[2] Washington Univ, Dept Neurol, Sch Med, St Louis, MO 63110 USA
[3] Washington Univ, Knight Alzheimer Dis Res Ctr, Sch Med, St Louis, MO 63110 USA
[4] Washington Univ, Div Biostat, Sch Med, St Louis, MO 63110 USA
[5] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Radiol & Biomed Imaging, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[6] Univ Michigan, Dept Radiol, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA
[7] Univ Pittsburgh, Dept Neurol, Pittsburgh, PA 15260 USA
关键词
PET; PiB; Amyloid imaging; Centiloid; PARTIAL VOLUME CORRECTION; PITTSBURGH COMPOUND B; ALZHEIMERS-DISEASE; AMYLOID-BETA; BIOMARKER CHANGES; QUANTIFICATION; DEMENTIA; TRIAL;
D O I
10.1016/j.nicl.2018.04.022
中图分类号
R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
100207 ;
摘要
Amyloid imaging is a valuable tool for research and diagnosis in dementing disorders. Successful use of this tool is limited by the lack of a common standard in the quantification of amyloid imaging data. The Centiloid approach was recently proposed to address this problem and in this work, we report our implementation of this approach and evaluate the impact of differences in underlying image analysis methodologies using both cross-sectional and longitudinal datasets. The Centiloid approach successfully converts quantitative amyloid burden measurements into a common Centiloid scale (CL) and comparable dynamic range. As expected, the Centiloid values derived from different analytical approaches inherit some of the inherent benefits and drawbacks of the underlying approaches, and these differences result in statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences in the variability and group mean values. Because of these differences, even after expression in CL, the 95% specificity amyloid positivity thresholds derived from different analytic approaches varied from 5.7 CL to 11.9 CL, and the reliable worsening threshold varied from -2.0 CL to 11.0 CL. Although this difference is in part due to the dependency of the threshold determination methodology on the statistical characteristics of the measurements. When amyloid measurements obtained from different centers are combined for analysis, one should not expect Centiloid conversion to eliminate all the differences in amyloid burden measurements due to variabilities in underlying acquisition protocols and analysis techniques.
引用
收藏
页码:406 / 416
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] LONGITUDINAL AND CROSS-SECTIONAL MORTALITY STUDIES IN INJECTING DRUG-USERS
    DAVOLI, M
    FORASTIERE, F
    ABENI, DD
    RAPITI, E
    PERUCCI, CA
    JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH, 1994, 48 (01) : 101 - 101
  • [33] Comparison of Pittsburgh compound B and florbetapir in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies
    Su, Yi
    Flores, Shaney
    Wang, Guoqiao
    Hornbeck, Russ C.
    Speidel, Benjamin
    Joseph-Mathurin, Nelly
    Vlassenko, Andrei G.
    Gordon, Brian A.
    Koeppe, Robert A.
    Klunk, William E.
    Jack, Clifford R.
    Farlow, Martin R.
    Salloway, Stephen
    Snider, Barbara J.
    Berman, Sarah B.
    Roberson, Erik D.
    Brosch, Jared
    Jimenez-Velazques, Ivonne
    van Dyck, Christopher H.
    Galasko, Douglas
    Yuan, Shauna H.
    Jayadev, Suman
    Honig, Lawrence S.
    Gauthier, Serge
    Hsiung, Ging-Yuek R.
    Masellis, Mario
    Brooks, William S.
    Fulham, Michael
    Clarnette, Roger
    Masters, Colin L.
    Wallon, David
    Hannequin, Didier
    Dubois, Bruno
    Pariente, Jeremie
    Sanchez-Valle, Raquel
    Mummery, Catherine
    Ringman, John M.
    Bottlaender, Michel
    Klein, Gregory
    Milosavljevic-Ristic, Smiljana
    McDade, Eric
    Xiong, Chengjie
    Morris, John C.
    Bateman, Randall J.
    Benzinger, Tammie L. S.
    ALZHEIMER'S & DEMENTIA: DIAGNOSIS, ASSESSMENT & DISEASE MONITORING, 2019, 11 (01) : 180 - 190
  • [34] Re: Validation of cross-sectional studies with longitudinal meta-analysis
    J.-a. Liu
    Q. Wang
    Osteoporosis International, 2016, 27 : 2881 - 2881
  • [35] AWARENESS OF BODY DIMENSIONS IN ANOREXIA NERVOSA CROSS-SECTIONAL AND LONGITUDINAL STUDIES
    SLADE, PD
    RUSSELL, GFM
    PSYCHOLOGICAL MEDICINE, 1973, 3 (02) : 188 - 199
  • [36] Central Obesity and Albuminuria: Both Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Studies in Chinese
    Lin, Wen-Yuan
    Pi-Sunyer, F. Xavier
    Liu, Chiu-Shong
    Li, Chia-Ing
    Davidson, Lance E.
    Li, Tsai-Chung
    Lin, Cheng-Chieh
    PLOS ONE, 2012, 7 (12):
  • [37] HISTORICAL NOTE ABOUT CROSS-SECTIONAL VERSUS LONGITUDINAL-STUDIES
    STANLEY, JC
    JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION, 1985, 19 (03): : 359 - 361
  • [38] CROSS-SECTIONAL AND LONGITUDINAL COMPARISON OF 18FMK6240 AND 18F-Flortaucipir IN POPULATIONS MATCHED FOR CENTILOID, AGE AND MMSE
    Bourgeat, Pierrick
    INTERNAL MEDICINE JOURNAL, 2023, 53 : 60 - 61
  • [39] Is my study cross-sectional or longitudinal?
    Martinez, Luis Alberto Corona
    Hernandez, Mercedes Fonseca
    MEDISUR-REVISTA DE CIENCIAS MEDICAS DE CIENFUEGOS, 2023, 21 (04): : 931 - 934
  • [40] LONGITUDINAL THEORY AND CROSS-SECTIONAL DATA
    KENDLER, TS
    BULLETIN OF THE PSYCHONOMIC SOCIETY, 1979, 14 (04) : 251 - 251