Advertisement

Automated analysis of FDG PET as a tool for single-subject probabilistic prediction and detection of Alzheimer’s disease dementia

  • Javier ArbizuEmail author
  • E. Prieto
  • P. Martínez-Lage
  • J. M. Martí-Climent
  • M. García-Granero
  • I. Lamet
  • P. Pastor
  • M. Riverol
  • M. T. Gómez-Isla
  • I. Peñuelas
  • J. A. Richter
  • M. W. Weiner
  • for the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

To introduce, evaluate and validate a voxel-based analysis method of 18F-FDG PET imaging for determining the probability of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in a particular individual.

Methods

The subject groups for model derivation comprised 80 healthy subjects (HS), 36 patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) who converted to AD dementia within 18 months, 85 non-converter MCI patients who did not convert within 24 months, and 67 AD dementia patients with baseline FDG PET scan were recruited from the AD Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) database. Additionally, baseline FDG PET scans from 20 HS, 27 MCI and 21 AD dementia patients from our institutional cohort were included for model validation. The analysis technique was designed on the basis of the AD-related hypometabolic convergence index adapted for our laboratory-specific context (AD-PET index), and combined in a multivariable model with age and gender for AD dementia detection (AD score). A logistic regression analysis of different cortical PET indexes and clinical variables was applied to search for relevant predictive factors to include in the multivariable model for the prediction of MCI conversion to AD dementia (AD-Conv score). The resultant scores were stratified into sixtiles for probabilistic diagnosis.

Results

The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the AD score detecting AD dementia in the ADNI database was 0.879, and the observed probability of AD dementia in the six defined groups ranged from 8 % to 100 % in a monotonic trend. For predicting MCI conversion to AD dementia, only the posterior cingulate index, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score and apolipoprotein E4 genotype (ApoE4) exhibited significant independent effects in the univariable and multivariable models. When only the latter two clinical variables were included in the model, the AUC was 0.742 (95 % CI 0.646 – 0.838), but this increased to 0.804 (95 % CI 0.714 – 0.894, bootstrap p = 0.027) with the addition of the posterior cingulate index (AD-Conv score). Baseline clinical diagnosis of MCI showed 29.7 % of converters after 18 months. The observed probability of conversion in relation to baseline AD-Conv score was 75 % in the high probability group (sixtile 6), 34 % in the medium probability group (merged sixtiles 4 and 5), 20 % in the low probability group (sixtile 3) and 7.5 % in the very low probability group (merged sixtiles 1 and 2). In the validation population, the AD score reached an AUC of 0.948 (95 % CI 0.625 – 0.969) and the AD-Conv score reached 0.968 (95 % CI 0.908 – 1.000), with AD patients and MCI converters included in the highest probability categories.

Conclusion

Posterior cingulate hypometabolism, when combined in a multivariable model with age and gender as well as MMSE score and ApoE4 data, improved the determination of the likelihood of patients with MCI converting to AD dementia compared with clinical variables alone. The probabilistic model described here provides a new tool that may aid in the clinical diagnosis of AD and MCI conversion.

Keywords

FDG PET Alzheimer’s disease Mild cognitive impairment Dementia Prediction 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the Government of Spain, Institute of Health Carlos III, the Ministry of Health grant 01/0809, and the Ministry of Science and Innovation grant ADE 10/00028, and CB06/05/0077 CIBERNED (Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Neurodegenerativas).

Data collection and sharing for this project was funded by the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI; National Institutes of Health grant U01 AG024904). ADNI is funded by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, and through generous contributions from the following: Abbott; Alzheimer’s Association; Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation; Amorfix Life Sciences Ltd.; AstraZeneca; Bayer HealthCare; BioClinica, Inc.; Biogen Idec Inc.; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Eisai Inc.; Elan Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Eli Lilly and Company; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and its affiliated company Genentech, Inc.; GE Healthcare; Innogenetics, N.V.; IXICO Ltd.; Janssen Alzheimer Immunotherapy Research & Development, LLC.; Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development LLC.; Medpace, Inc.; Merck & Co., Inc.; Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC.; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Pfizer Inc.; Servier; Synarc Inc.; and Takeda Pharmaceutical Company. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research provides funds to support ADNI clinical sites in Canada. Private sector contributions are facilitated by the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (www.fnih.org). The grantee organization is the Northern California Institute for Research and Education, and the study was coordinated by the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study at the University of California, San Diego. ADNI data are disseminated by the Laboratory for Neuroimaging at the University of California, Los Angeles. This research was also supported by NIH grants P30 AG010129 and K01 AG030514.

Conflict of interest

M.W. Weiner is the principal investigator of ADNI and declares the above-mentioned organizations as contributors to the Foundation for NIH and thus to the NIA-funded ADNI. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

  1. 1.
    Dubois B, Feldman HH, Jacova C, Cummings JL, DeKosky ST, Barberger-Gateau P, et al. Revising the definition of Alzheimer’s disease: a new lexicon. Lancet Neurol. 2010;9:1118–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McKhann GM, Knopman DS, Chertkow H, Hyman BT, Jack Jr CR, Kawas CH, et al. The diagnosis of dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement. 2011;7:263–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Albert MS, DeKosky ST, Dickson D, Dubois B, Feldman HH, Fox NC, et al. The diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer’s disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer Dement. 2011;7:270–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sperling RA, Johnson KA. Dementia: new criteria but no new treatments. Lancet Neurol. 2012;11:4–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bohnen NI, Djang DSW, Herholz K, Anzai Y, Minoshima S. Effectiveness and safety of 18F-FDG PET in the evaluation of dementia: a review of the recent literature. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:59–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Landau S, Harvey D, Madison C, Reiman E, Foster N, Aisen P, et al. Comparing predictors of conversion and decline in mild cognitive impairment. Neurology. 2010;75:230–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Minoshima S, Frey KA, Koeppe RA, Foster NL, Kuhl DE. A diagnostic approach in Alzheimer’s disease using three-dimensional stereotactic surface projections of fluorine-18-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 1995;36:1238–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Herholz K, Salmon E, Perani D, Baron JC, Holthoff V, Frolich L, et al. Discrimination between Alzheimer dementia and controls by automated analysis of multicenter FDG PET. Neuroimage. 2002;17:302–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Landau SM, Harvey D, Madison CM, Koeppe RA, Reiman EM, Foster NL, et al. Associations between cognitive, functional, and FDG-PET measures of decline in AD and MCI. Neurobiol Aging. 2011;32:1207–18.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen K, Ayutyanont N, Langbaum JB, Langbaum J, Fleisher AS, Reschke C, et al. Characterizing Alzheimer’s disease using a hypometabolic convergence index. Neuroimage. 2011;56:52–60PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shaffer JL, Petrella JR, Sheldon FC, Choudhury KR, Calhoun VD, Coleman RE, et al. Predicting cognitive decline in subjects at risk for Alzheimer disease by using combined cerebrospinal fluid, MR Imaging, and PET biomarkers. Radiology. 2013;266:583–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Caroli A, Prestia A, Chen K, Ayutyanont N, Landau SM, Madison CM, et al. Summary metrics to assess Alzheimer disease-related hypometabolic pattern with 18F-FDG PET: head-to-head comparison. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:592–600PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Herholz K, Westwood S, Haense C, Dunn G. Evaluation of a calibrated 18F-FDG PET score as a biomarker for progression in Alzheimer Disease and mild cognitive impairment. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:1218–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cruchaga C, Fernández-Seara MA, Seijo-Martínez M, Samaranch L, Lorenzo E, Hinrichs A, et al. Cortical atrophy and language network reorganization associated with a novel progranulin mutation. Cerebral Cortex. 2009;19:1751–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McKhann G, Drachman D, Folstein M, Katzman R, Price D, Stadlan EM. Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: report of the NINCDS-ADRDA Work Group under the auspices of Department of Health and Human Services Task Force on Alzheimer’s Disease. Neurology. 1984;34:939–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Petersen RC. Mild cognitive impairment as a diagnostic entity. J Intern Med. 2004;256:183–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wahlund L, Barkhof F, Fazekas F, Bronge L, Augustin M, Sjögren M, et al. A new rating scale for age-related white matter changes applicable to MRI and CT. Stroke. 2001;32:1318–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pascual B, Prieto E, Arbizu J, Marti-Climent J, Olier J, Masdeu JC. Brain glucose metabolism in vascular white matter disease with dementia: differentiation from Alzheimer disease. Stroke. 2010;41:2889–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Friston KJ, Holmes AP, Worsley KJ, Poline J, Frith CD, Frackowiak RSJ. Statistical parametric maps in functional imaging: a general linear approach. Hum Brain Mapp. 1994;2:189–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tzourio-Mazoyer N, Landeau B, Papathanassiou D, Crivello F, Etard O, Delcroix N, et al. Automated anatomical labeling of activations in SPM using a macroscopic anatomical parcellation of the MNI MRI single-subject brain. Neuroimage. 2002;15:273–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 2000. p. 91–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fox J. Applied regression analysis and generalized linear models. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2008. p. 587–606.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Perrin RJ, Fagan AM, Holtzman DM. Multimodal techniques for diagnosis and prognosis of Alzheimer’s disease. Nature. 2009;461:916–22.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Weiner MW, Veitch DP, Aisen PS, Beckett LA, Cairns NJ, Green RC, et al. The Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative: a review of papers published since its inception. Alzheimers Dement. 2012;8:S1–68.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Drzezga A, Grimmer T, Henriksen G, Mühlau M, Perneczky R, Miederer I, et al. Effect of APOE genotype on amyloid plaque load and gray matter volume in Alzheimer disease. Neurology. 2009;72:1487–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pievani M, Galluzzi S, Thompson PM, Rasser PE, Bonetti M, Frisoni GB. APOE4 is associated with greater atrophy of the hippocampal formation in Alzheimer’s disease. Neuroimage. 2011;55:909–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chen K, Ayutyanont N, Langbaum JB, Langbaum J, Fleisher AS, Reschke C, et al. Correlations between FDG PET glucose uptake-MRI gray matter volume scores and apolipoprotein E ε4 gene dose in cognitively normal adults: a cross-validation study using voxel-based multi-modal partial least squares. Neuroimage 2012;60:2316–22PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Reiman EM, Uecker A, Caselli RJ, Lewis S, Bandy D, De Leon MJ, et al. Hippocampal volumes in cognitively normal persons at genetic risk for Alzheimer’s disease. Ann Neurol. 1998;44:288–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Drzezga A, Grimmer T, Riemenschneider M, Lautenschlager N, Siebner H, Alexopoulus P, et al. Prediction of individual clinical outcome in MCI by means of genetic assessment and 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:1625–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mosconi L, Perani D, Sorbi S, Herholz K, Nacmias B, Holthoff V, et al. MCI conversion to dementia and the APOE genotype: a prediction study with FDG-PET. Neurology. 2004;63:2332–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schuff N, Woerner N, Boreta L, Kornfield T, Shaw L, Trojanowski J, et al. MRI of hippocampal volume loss in early Alzheimer’s disease in relation to ApoE genotype and biomarkers. Brain. 2009;132:1067–77.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bouwman FH, Verwey NA, Klein M, Kok A, Blankenstein M, Sluimer J, et al. New research criteria for the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease applied in a memory clinic population. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2010;30:1–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schoonenboom NSM, van der Flier WM, Blankenstein MA, Bouwman FH, Van Kamp GJ, Barkhof F, et al. CSF and MRI markers independently contribute to the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. Neurobiol Aging. 2008;29:669–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Minoshima S, Giordani B, Berent S, Frey KA, Foster NL, Kuhl DE. Metabolic reduction in the posterior cingulate cortex in very early Alzheimer’s disease. Ann Neurol. 1997;42:85–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mosconi L. Brain glucose metabolism in the early and specific diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. FDG-PET studies in MCI and AD. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32:486–510.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jack Jr CR, Knopman DS, Jagust WJ, Shaw LM, Aisen PS, Weiner MW, et al. Hypothetical model of dynamic biomarkers of the Alzheimer’s pathological cascade. Lancet Neurol. 2010;9:119–28.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pagani M, Dessi B, Morbelli S, Brugnolo A, Salmaso D, Piccini A, et al. MCI patients declining and not-declining at mid-term follow-up: FDG-PET findings. Curr Alzheimer Res. 2010;7:287–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Drzezga A, Lautenschlager N, Siebner H, Riemenschneider M, Willoch F, Minoshima S, et al. Cerebral metabolic changes accompanying conversion of mild cognitive impairment into Alzheimer’s disease: a PET follow-up study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:1104–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yakushev I, Schreckenberger M, Müller MJ, Schermuly I, Cumming P, Stoeter P, et al. Functional implications of hippocampal degeneration in early Alzheimer’s disease: a combined DTI and PET study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:2219–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Morbelli S, Drzezga A, Perneczky R, Frisoni GB, Caroli A, van Berckel BN, et al. Resting metabolic connectivity in prodromal Alzheimer’s disease. A European Alzheimer Disease Consortium (EADC) project. Neurobiol Aging. 2012;33:2533–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Javier Arbizu
    • 1
    Email author
  • E. Prieto
    • 1
  • P. Martínez-Lage
    • 2
    • 5
  • J. M. Martí-Climent
    • 1
  • M. García-Granero
    • 3
  • I. Lamet
    • 2
  • P. Pastor
    • 2
  • M. Riverol
    • 2
  • M. T. Gómez-Isla
    • 2
    • 6
  • I. Peñuelas
    • 1
  • J. A. Richter
    • 1
  • M. W. Weiner
    • 4
  • for the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear MedicineClínica Universidad de NavarraPamplonaSpain
  2. 2.Department of NeurologyClínica Universidad de NavarraPamplonaSpain
  3. 3.Department of Biochemistry and Genetics, School of SciencesUniversity of NavarraPamplonaSpain
  4. 4.Center for Imaging of Neurodegenerative Diseases (CIND)San Francisco VA Medical CenterSan FranciscoUSA
  5. 5.Fundación CITA-Alzheimer Fundazioa, Center for Research and Advanced Therapies AlzheimerParque Tecnológico de San SebastiánSan SebastiánSpain
  6. 6.Neurology DepartmentMassachusetts General HospitalBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations