Evaluation of semi-quantitative measures of 18F-Flutemetamol PET for the clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease

Abstract

Background: 18F-flutemetamol positron emission tomography (PET) is used to assess cortical amyloid-β burden in patients with cognitive impairment to support a clinical diagnosis. Visual classification is the most widely used method in clinical practice although semi-quantification is beneficial to obtain an objective and continuous measure of the Aβ burden. The aims were: first to evaluate the correspondence between standardized uptake value ratios (SUVRs) from three different software, Centiloids and visual classification, second to estimate thresholds for supporting visual classification and last to assess differences in semi-quantitative measures between clinical diagnoses.

Methods: This observational study included 195 patients with cognitive impairment who underwent 18F-flutemetamol PET. PET images were semi-quantified with SyngoVia, CortexID suite, and PMOD. Receiver operating characteristics curves were used to compare visual classification with composite SUVR normalized to pons (SUVRpons) and cerebellar cortex (SUVRcer), and Centiloids. We explored correlations and differences between semi-quantitative measures as well as differences in SUVR between two clinical diagnosis groups: Alzheimer’s disease-group and non-Alzheimer’s disease-group.

Results: PET images from 191 patients were semi-quantified with SyngoVia and CortexID and 86 PET-magnetic resonance imaging pairs with PMOD. All receiver operating characteristics curves showed a high area under the curve (>0.98). Thresholds for a visually positive PET was for SUVRcer: 1.87 (SyngoVia) and 1.64 (CortexID) and for SUVRpons: 0.54 (SyngoVia) and 0.55 (CortexID). The threshold on the Centiloid scale was 39.6 Centiloids. All semi-quantitative measures showed a very high correlation between different software and normalization methods. Composite SUVRcer was significantly different between SyngoVia and PMOD, SyngoVia and CortexID but not between PMOD and CortexID. Composite SUVRpons were significantly different between all three software. There were significant differences in the mean rank of SUVRpons, SUVRcer, and Centiloid between Alzheimer’s disease-group and non-Alzheimer’s disease-group.

Conclusions: SUVR from different software performed equally well in discriminating visually positive and negative 18F-Flutemetamol PET images. Thresholds should be considered software-specific and cautiously be applied across software without preceding validation to categorize scans as positive or negative. SUVR and Centiloid may be used alongside a thorough clinical evaluation to support a clinical diagnosis.