European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2019
Head-to-head comparison of tau positron emission tomography tracers [18F]flortaucipir and [18F]RO948.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Smith Ruben, Schöll Michael, Leuzy Antoine, Jögi Jonas, Ohlsson Tomas, Strandberg Olof, Hansson Oskar
Аннотация
PURPOSE: [18F]flortaucipir binds to paired helical filament tau and accurately identifies tau in Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, "off-target" binding interferes with the quantification of [18F]flortaucipir in several brain regions. Recently, other tau PET tracers have been developed. Here, we compare [18F]flortaucipir with the novel tau tracer [18F]RO948 head-to-head in vivo.
METHODS: We included 18 participants with AD, three with amyloid-β-positive amnestic mild cognitive impairment, and four healthy controls. All underwent [18F]flortaucipir (80-100 min) and [18F]RO948 (70-90) PET scans within approximately 1 month. Four study participants underwent 0-100-min dynamic scanning. Standardized uptake value ratios (SUVRs) were created using an inferior cerebellar reference region.
RESULTS: Neocortical tracer retention was highly comparable using both SUVR and distribution volume ratio-1 values obtained from dynamic scans. However, [18F]RO948 retention was significantly higher in the entorhinal cortex and lower in the basal ganglia, thalamus, and choroid plexus compared with [18F]flortaucipir. Increased off-target binding was observed with age for both tracers. Several cases exhibited strong [18F]RO948 retention in the skull/meninges. This extra-cerebral signal, however, did not affect diagnostic accuracy and remained relatively unchanged when re-examining a subsample after 1 year. Kinetic modeling showed an increase in [18F]flortaucipir SUVR over the scanning interval, compared with a plateau for [18F]RO948.
CONCLUSION: [18F]RO948 and [18F]flortaucipir bound comparably in neocortical regions, but [18F]RO948 showed higher retention in the medial temporal lobe and lower intracerebral "off-target" binding. Time-dependent bias of SUVR estimates may prove less of a factor with [18F]RO948, compared with previous tau ligands.
METHODS: We included 18 participants with AD, three with amyloid-β-positive amnestic mild cognitive impairment, and four healthy controls. All underwent [18F]flortaucipir (80-100 min) and [18F]RO948 (70-90) PET scans within approximately 1 month. Four study participants underwent 0-100-min dynamic scanning. Standardized uptake value ratios (SUVRs) were created using an inferior cerebellar reference region.
RESULTS: Neocortical tracer retention was highly comparable using both SUVR and distribution volume ratio-1 values obtained from dynamic scans. However, [18F]RO948 retention was significantly higher in the entorhinal cortex and lower in the basal ganglia, thalamus, and choroid plexus compared with [18F]flortaucipir. Increased off-target binding was observed with age for both tracers. Several cases exhibited strong [18F]RO948 retention in the skull/meninges. This extra-cerebral signal, however, did not affect diagnostic accuracy and remained relatively unchanged when re-examining a subsample after 1 year. Kinetic modeling showed an increase in [18F]flortaucipir SUVR over the scanning interval, compared with a plateau for [18F]RO948.
CONCLUSION: [18F]RO948 and [18F]flortaucipir bound comparably in neocortical regions, but [18F]RO948 showed higher retention in the medial temporal lobe and lower intracerebral "off-target" binding. Time-dependent bias of SUVR estimates may prove less of a factor with [18F]RO948, compared with previous tau ligands.