Tessa Timmers, Rik Ossenkoppele, Denise Visser, Hayel Tuncel, Emma E Wolters, Sander Cj Verfaillie, Wiesje M van der Flier, Ronald Boellaard, Sandeep Sv Golla, Bart Nm van Berckel
{"title":"Test-retest repeatability of [<sup>18</sup>F]Flortaucipir PET in Alzheimer's disease and cognitively normal individuals.","authors":"Tessa Timmers, Rik Ossenkoppele, Denise Visser, Hayel Tuncel, Emma E Wolters, Sander Cj Verfaillie, Wiesje M van der Flier, Ronald Boellaard, Sandeep Sv Golla, Bart Nm van Berckel","doi":"10.1177/0271678X19879226","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aim of this study was to investigate the test-retest (TRT) repeatability of various parametric quantification methods for [<sup>18</sup>F]Flortaucipir positron emission tomography (PET). We included eight subjects with dementia or mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease and six cognitively normal subjects. All underwent two 130-min dynamic [<sup>18</sup>F]Flortaucipir PET scans within 3 ± 1 weeks. Data were analyzed using reference region models receptor parametric mapping (RPM), simplified reference tissue method 2 (SRTM2) and reference logan (RLogan), as well as standardized uptake value ratios (SUVr, time intervals 40-60, 80-100 and 110-130 min post-injection) with cerebellar gray matter as reference region. We obtained distribution volume ratio or SUVr, first for all brain regions and then in three tau-specific regions-of-interest (ROIs). TRT repeatability (%) was defined as |retest-test|/(average (test + retest)) × 100. For all methods and across ROIs, TRT repeatability ranged from (median (IQR)) 0.84% (0.68-2.15) to 6.84% (2.99-11.50). TRT repeatability was good for all reference methods used, although semi-quantitative models (i.e. SUVr) performed marginally worse than quantitative models, for instance TRT repeatability of RPM: 1.98% (0.78-3.58) vs. SUVr<sub>80-100</sub>: 3.05% (1.28-5.52), <i>p</i> < 0.001. Furthermore, for SUVr<sub>80-100</sub> and SUVr<sub>110-130</sub>, with higher average SUVr, more variation was observed. In conclusion, while TRT repeatability was good for all models used, quantitative methods performed slightly better than semi-quantitative methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":14100,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Geomechanics","volume":"20 1","pages":"2464-2474"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7705644/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Geomechanics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0271678X19879226","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, GEOLOGICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the test-retest (TRT) repeatability of various parametric quantification methods for [18F]Flortaucipir positron emission tomography (PET). We included eight subjects with dementia or mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease and six cognitively normal subjects. All underwent two 130-min dynamic [18F]Flortaucipir PET scans within 3 ± 1 weeks. Data were analyzed using reference region models receptor parametric mapping (RPM), simplified reference tissue method 2 (SRTM2) and reference logan (RLogan), as well as standardized uptake value ratios (SUVr, time intervals 40-60, 80-100 and 110-130 min post-injection) with cerebellar gray matter as reference region. We obtained distribution volume ratio or SUVr, first for all brain regions and then in three tau-specific regions-of-interest (ROIs). TRT repeatability (%) was defined as |retest-test|/(average (test + retest)) × 100. For all methods and across ROIs, TRT repeatability ranged from (median (IQR)) 0.84% (0.68-2.15) to 6.84% (2.99-11.50). TRT repeatability was good for all reference methods used, although semi-quantitative models (i.e. SUVr) performed marginally worse than quantitative models, for instance TRT repeatability of RPM: 1.98% (0.78-3.58) vs. SUVr80-100: 3.05% (1.28-5.52), p < 0.001. Furthermore, for SUVr80-100 and SUVr110-130, with higher average SUVr, more variation was observed. In conclusion, while TRT repeatability was good for all models used, quantitative methods performed slightly better than semi-quantitative methods.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Geomechanics (IJOG) focuses on geomechanics with emphasis on theoretical aspects, including computational and analytical methods and related validations. Applications of interdisciplinary topics such as geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering, mining and geological engineering, rock and blasting engineering, underground structures, infrastructure and pavement engineering, petroleum engineering, engineering geophysics, offshore and marine geotechnology, geothermal energy, lunar and planetary engineering, and ice mechanics fall within the scope of the journal. Specific topics covered include numerical and analytical methods; constitutive modeling including elasticity, plasticity, creep, localization, fracture and instabilities; neural networks, expert systems, optimization and reliability; statics and dynamics of interacting structures and foundations; liquid and gas flow through geologic media, contaminant transport and groundwater problems; borehole stability, geohazards such as earthquakes, landslides and subsidence; soil/rock improvement; and the development of model validations using laboratory and field measurements.