Advertisement

Feasibility and acceptance of simultaneous amyloid PET/MRI

  • Lisa Schütz
  • Donald Lobsien
  • Dominik Fritzsch
  • Solveig Tiepolt
  • Peter Werner
  • Matthias L. Schroeter
  • Jörg Berrouschot
  • Dorothee Saur
  • Swen Hesse
  • Thies Jochimsen
  • Michael Rullmann
  • Bernhard Sattler
  • Marianne Patt
  • Hermann-Josef Gertz
  • Arno Villringer
  • Joseph Claßen
  • Karl-Titus Hoffmann
  • Osama Sabri
  • Henryk BarthelEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Established Alzheimer’s disease (AD) biomarker concepts classify into amyloid pathology and neuronal injury biomarkers, while recent alternative concepts classify into diagnostic and progression AD biomarkers. However, combined amyloid positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI) offers the chance to obtain both biomarker category read-outs within one imaging session, with increased patient as well as referrer convenience. The aim of this pilot study was to investigate this matter for the first time.

Methods

100 subjects (age 70 ± 10 yrs, 46 female), n = 51 with clinically defined mild cognitive impairment (MCI), n = 44 with possible/probable AD dementia, and n = 5 with frontotemporal lobe degeneration, underwent simultaneous [18F]florbetaben or [11C]PIB PET/MRI (3 Tesla Siemens mMR). Brain amyloid load, mesial temporal lobe atrophy (MTLA) by means of the Scheltens scale, and other morphological brain pathologies were scored by respective experts. The patients/caregivers as well as the referrers were asked to assess on a five-point scale the convenience related to the one-stop-shop PET and MRI approach.

Results

In three subjects, MRI revealed temporal lobe abnormalities other than MTLA. According to the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association classification, the combined amyloid-beta PET/MRI evaluation resulted in 31 %, 45 %, and 24 % of the MCI subjects being categorized as “MCI-unlikely due to AD”, “MCI due to AD-intermediate likelihood”, and “MCI due to AD-high likelihood”, respectively. 50 % of the probable AD dementia patients were categorized as “High level of evidence of AD pathophysiological process”, and 56 % of the possible AD dementia patients as “Possible AD dementia - with evidence of AD pathophysiological process”. With regard to the International Working Group 2 classification, 36 subjects had both positive diagnostic and progression biomarkers. The patient/caregiver survey revealed a gain of convenience in 88 % of responders as compared to a theoretically separate PET and MR imaging. In the referrer survey, an influence of the combined amyloid-beta PET/MRI on the final diagnosis was reported by 82 % of responders, with a referrer acceptance score of 3.7 ± 1.0 on a 5-point scale.

Conclusion

Simultaneous amyloid PET/MRI is feasible and provides imaging biomarkers of all categories which are able to supplement the clinical diagnosis of MCI due to AD and that of AD dementia. Further, patient and referrer convenience is improved by this one-stop-shop imaging approach.

Keywords

PET/MRI Amyloid Alzheimer’s disease MCI 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The invaluable support of the PET/MRI, cyclotron and radiopharmacy staff of the Leipzig University Hospital Department of Nuclear Medicine is greatly acknowledged. MLS has been supported by the German Consortium for Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration, funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, by the Parkinson’s Disease Foundation (Grant No. PDF-IRG-1307), and by the Michael J Fox Foundation. The acquisition of the Leipzig PET/MRI system was funded by the German Research Foundation (grant code SA 669/9-1) and co-funded by the German Max Planck Society.

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosures

MR received travel expenses from Piramal Imaging (Berlin, Germany). OS and HB received speaker/consultant honoraria as well as travel expenses by Piramal Imaging and Siemens Healthcare (Erlangen, Germany). Assistance with manuscript preparation was provided by Bioscript Medical (London, UK) and funded by Piramal Imaging.

Conflicts of interest

MR received travel expenses by Piramal Imaging (Berlin, Germany). OS and HB received speaker/consultant honoraria as well as travel expenses by Piramal Imaging and Siemens Healthcare (Erlangen, Germany).

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This study was approved by the local ethics committee.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Dubois B, Feldman HH, Jacova C, et al. Research criteria for the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: revising the NINCDS–ADRDA criteria. Lancet Neurol. 2007;6(8):734–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dubois B, Feldman HH, Jacova C, et al. Advancing research diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer’s disease: the IWG-2 criteria. Lancet Neurol. 2014;13(6):614–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Albert MS, DeKosky ST, Dickson D, 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. Alzheimers Dement. 2011;7(3):270–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McKhann GM, Knopman DS, Chertkow H, 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(3):263–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Leon MJ, Ferris SH, George AE, et al. Positron emission tomographic studies of aging and Alzheimer disease. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1983;4(3):568–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Scheltens P, Leys D, Barkhof F, et al. Atrophy of medial temporal lobes on MRI in “probable” Alzheimer’s disease and normal ageing: diagnostic value and neuropsychological correlates. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1992;55(10):967–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barthel H, Seibyl J, Sabri O. The role of positron emission tomography imaging in understanding Alzheimer’s disease. Expert Rev Neurother. 2015;15(4):395–406.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Villemagne VL, Fodero-Tavoletti MT, Masters CL, Rowe CC. Tau imaging: early progress and future directions. Lancet Neurol. 2015;14(1):114–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clark CM, Schneider JA, Bedell BJ, et al. Use of florbetapir-PET for imaging beta-amyloid pathology. JAMA. 2011;305(3):275–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clark CM, Pontecorvo MJ, Beach TG, et al. Cerebral PET with florbetapir compared with neuropathology at autopsy for detection of neuritic amyloid-β plaques: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Neurol. 2012;11(8):669–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Teipel S, Drzezga A, Grothe MJ, et al. Multimodal imaging in Alzheimer’s disease: validity and usefulness for early detection. Lancet Neurol. 2015;14(10):1037–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vercher-Conejero JL, Rubbert C, Kohan AA, Partovi S, O’Donnell JK. Amyloid PET/MRI in the differential diagnosis of dementia. Clin Nucl Med. 2014;39(6):e336–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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. [Review]. Neurology. 1984;34(7):939–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV-TR. 4th ed. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association; 2000.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Neary D, Snowden J, Mann D. Frontotemporal dementia. Lancet Neurol. 2005;4(11):771–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Klunk WE, Engler H, Nordberg A, et al. Imaging brain amyloid in Alzheimer’s disease with Pittsburgh Compound-B. Ann Neurol. 2004;55(3):306–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Barthel H, Sabri O. Florbetaben to trace amyloid-β in the Alzheimer brain by means of PET. J Alzheimers Dis JAD. 2011;26 Suppl 3:117–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sabri O, Seibyl J, Rowe C, Barthel H. Beta-amyloid imaging with florbetaben. Clin Transl Imaging. 2015;3(1):13–26.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Barthel H, Gertz H-J, Dresel S, et al. Cerebral amyloid-β PET with florbetaben (18F) in patients with Alzheimer’s disease and healthy controls: a multicentre phase 2 diagnostic study. Lancet Neurol. 2011;10(5):424–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Villemagne VL, Mulligan RS, Pejoska S, et al. Comparison of 11C-PiB and 18F-florbetaben for Aβ imaging in ageing and Alzheimer’s disease. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39(6):983–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Drzezga A, Barthel H, Minoshima S, Sabri O. Potential Clinical Applications of PET/MR Imaging in Neurodegenerative Disea. J Nucl Med. 2014;55(Supplement 2):47S–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Geroldi C, Rossi R, Calvagna C, et al. Medial temporal atrophy but not memory deficit predicts progression to dementia in patients with mild cognitive impairment. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2006;77(11):1219–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jansen WJ, Ossenkoppele R, Knol DL, et al. Prevalence of Cerebral Amyloid Pathology in Persons Without Dementia. JAMA. 2015;313(19):1924–38.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ossenkoppele R, Jansen WJ, Rabinovici GD, et al. Prevalence of Amyloid PET Positivity in Dementia Syndromes: A Meta-analysis. JAMA. 2015;313(19):1939.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schoonenboom NSM, van der Flier WM, Blankenstein MA, et al. CSF and MRI markers independently contribute to the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. Neurobiol Aging. 2008;29(5):669–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Petersen RC, Aisen P, Boeve BF, et al. Criteria for Mild Cognitive Impairment Due to Alzheimer’s Disease in the Community. Ann Neurol. 2013;74(2):199–208.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Galluzzi S, Geroldi C, Amicucci G, et al. Supporting evidence for using biomarkers in the diagnosis of MCI due to AD. J Neurol. 2013;260(2):640–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lowe VJ, Peller PJ, Weigand SD, et al. Application of the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association AD criteria to ADNI. Neurology. 2013;80:2130–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Johnson KA, Minoshima S, Bohnen NI, et al. Update on Appropriate Use Criteria for Amyloid PET Imaging: Dementia Experts, Mild Cognitive Impairment, and Education. J Nucl Med. 2013;54(7):1011–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jack CR, Knopman DS, Weigand SD, et al. An Operational Approach to NIA-AA Criteria for Preclinical Alzheimer’s Disease. Ann Neurol. 2012;71(6):765–75.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jack CR. PART and SNAP. Acta Neuropathol (Berl). 2014;128(6):773–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tiepolt S, Patt M, Hoffmann K-T, Schroeter ML, Sabri O, Barthel H, et al. PET Imaging Pattern in an Amyloid-Negative Mild Cognitive Impairment Subject. Zwan M, ed. J Alzheimers Dis. 2015;47(3):539–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jack CR, Knopman DS, Jagust WJ, et al. Hypothetical model of dynamic biomarkers of the Alzheimer’s pathological cascade. Lancet Neurol. 2010;9(1):119.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Weise D, Tiepolt S, Awissus C, et al. Critical Comparison of Different Biomarkers for Alzheimer’s Disease in a Clinical Setting. J Alzheimers Dis. 2015;48(2):425–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bowen SL, Byars LG, Michel CJ, Chonde DB, Catana C. Influence of the partial volume correction method on 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose brain kinetic modelling from dynamic PET images reconstructed with resolution model based OSEM. Phys Med Biol. 2013;58(20):7081–106.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rullmann M, Dukart J, Hoffmann K-T, et al. Partial volume effect correction improves quantitative florbetaben beta-amyloid PET scan analysis. J Nucl Med. 2015:jnumed.115.161893.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Andersen FL, Ladefoged CN, Beyer T, et al. Combined PET/MR imaging in neurology: MR-based attenuation correction implies a strong spatial bias when ignoring bone. NeuroImage. 2014;84:206–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Su Y, Rubin B, McConathy J, et al. Impact of MR based attenuation correction on neurological PET studies. J Nucl Med. 2016:jnumed.115.164822.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Izquierdo-Garcia D, Hansen AE, Forster S, et al. An SPM8-Based Approach for Attenuation Correction Combining Segmentation and Nonrigid Template Formation: Application to Simultaneous PET/MR Brain Imaging. J Nucl Med. 2014;55(11):1825–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gückel B, Gatidis S, Enck P, et al. Patient comfort during positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance and positron emission tomography/computed tomography examinations: subjective assessments with visual analog scales. Investig Radiol. 2015;50(10):726–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lisa Schütz
    • 1
  • Donald Lobsien
    • 2
  • Dominik Fritzsch
    • 2
  • Solveig Tiepolt
    • 1
  • Peter Werner
    • 1
  • Matthias L. Schroeter
    • 3
    • 4
  • Jörg Berrouschot
    • 5
  • Dorothee Saur
    • 6
  • Swen Hesse
    • 1
    • 4
  • Thies Jochimsen
    • 1
  • Michael Rullmann
    • 1
  • Bernhard Sattler
    • 1
  • Marianne Patt
    • 1
  • Hermann-Josef Gertz
    • 7
  • Arno Villringer
    • 3
    • 4
  • Joseph Claßen
    • 6
  • Karl-Titus Hoffmann
    • 2
  • Osama Sabri
    • 1
    • 4
  • Henryk Barthel
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear MedicineLeipzig University HospitalLeipzigGermany
  2. 2.Department of NeuroradiologyLeipzig University HospitalLeipzigGermany
  3. 3.Day Clinic for Cognitive NeurologyLeipzig University Hospital & Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain SciencesLeipzigGermany
  4. 4.IFB Adiposity DiseasesLeipzig University HospitalLeipzigGermany
  5. 5.Clinical Centre Altenburger LandAltenburgGermany
  6. 6.Department of NeurologyLeipzig University HospitalLeipzigGermany
  7. 7.Department of PsychiatryLeipzig University HospitalLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations