Advertisement

Fitting of late dynamic [18F]MK6240 PET scans for in vivo tau quantification

  • Eric LaffonEmail author
  • Sébastien Buj
  • Henri de Clermont
  • Roger Marthan
Letter to the Editor
  • 89 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Neurology

Dear Sir,

We read with great interest the comparison by Guehl et al. of different strategies for in vivo quantification of tau aggregates with [18F]MK6240 in patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and in control subjects (CTRL)[1]. This comparison involved compartment modeling analysis including arterial blood sampling, as well as graphical and simplified methods. For all subjects, the preferred compartmental model was a reversible two-tissue model with the blood contribution included as a model parameter (2T4k1v). This model allowed the authors to fit the [18F]MK6240 uptake of MCI/AD patients, revealing a wide dynamic range as compared with CTRL subjects uptake (Fig. 2 by Guehl et al.). It also showed that the corresponding binding patterns were consistent with neurofibrillary tau deposition patterns [1]. In particular, the 2T4k1v model provided distribution volume ratios (DVR) where cerebellar gray matter (CGM) was used as the reference tissue,...

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

Not applicable.

Informed consent

Not applicable.

References

  1. 1.
    Guehl NJ, Wooten DW, Yokell DL, Moon SH, Dhaynaut M, Katz S, et al. Evaluation of pharmacokinetic modeling strategies for in vivo quantification of tau with the radiotracer [18F]MK6240 in human subjects. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46:2099–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Laffon E, Calcagni ML, Galli G, Giordano A, Capotosti A, Marthan R, et al. Comparison of three-parameter kinetic model analysis to standard Patlak's analysis in 18F-FDG PET imaging of lung cancer patients. EJNMMI Res. 2018;8:24–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    JCGM. Evaluation of measurement data – guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. www.bipm.org. 2008;(September 2008).

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CHU de BordeauxBordeauxFrance
  2. 2.Univ. Bordeaux, Centre de Recherche Cardio-Thoracique de BordeauxBordeauxFrance
  3. 3.INSERM U-1045, Centre de Recherche Cardio-Thoracique de BordeauxBordeauxFrance
  4. 4.Service de Médecine Nucléaire, Hôpital du Haut-LévèquePessacFrance

Personalised recommendations