Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Implementing the centiloid transformation for 11C-PiB and β-amyloid 18F-PET tracers using CapAIBL.|
|Authors:||Bourgeat, Pierrick;Doré, Vincent;Fripp, Jurgen;Ames, David;Masters, Colin L;Salvado, Olivier;Villemagne, Victor L;Rowe, Christopher C|
|Affiliation:||CSIRO Health and Biosecurity, Brisbane, Australia|
Department of Molecular Imaging and Therapy, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
National Ageing Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
|Citation:||NeuroImage 2018; 183: 387-393|
|Abstract:||The centiloid scale was recently proposed to provide a standard framework for the quantification of β-amyloid PET images, so that amyloid burden can be expressed on a standard scale. While the framework prescribes SPM8 as the standard analysis method for PET quantification, non-standard methods can be calibrated to produce centiloid values. We have previously developed a PET-only quantification: CapAIBL. In this study, we show how CapAIBL can be calibrated to the centiloid scale. Calibration images for 11C-PiB, 18F-NAV4694, 18F-Florbetaben, 18F-Flutemetamol and 18F- Florbetapir were analysed using the standard method and CapAIBL. Using these images, both methods were calibrated to the centiloid scale. Centiloid values computed using CapAIBL were compared to those computed using standard method. For each tracer, a separate validation was performed using an independent dataset from the AIBL study. Using the calibration images, there was a very strong agreement, and very little bias between the centiloid values computed using CapAIBL and those computed using the standard method with R2 > 0.97 across all tracers. Using images from AIBL, the agreement was also high with R2 > 0.96 across all tracers. In this dataset, there was a small underestimation of the centiloid values computed using CapAIBL of less than 0.8% in PiB, and a small over-estimation of 1.3% in Florbetapir, and 0.8% in Flutemetamol. There was a larger overestimation of 8% in NAV images, and 14% underestimation in Florbetaben images. However, some of these differences could be explained by the use of different scanners between the calibration scans and the ones used in AIBL. The PET-only quantification method, CapAIBL, can produce reliable centiloid values. The bias observed in the AIBL dataset for 18F-NAV4694 and 18F-Florbetaben may indicate that using different scanners or reconstruction methods might require scanner-specific adjustments.|
|Appears in Collections:||Journal articles|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.