Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Neuroimage Clin. 2018 Apr 25;19:406-416. doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2018.04.022. eCollection 2018.

Utilizing the Centiloid scale in cross-sectional and longitudinal PiB PET studies.

Author information

1
Department of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO 63110, USA; Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO 63110, USA. Electronic address: suy@wustl.edu.
2
Department of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO 63110, USA.
3
Department of Radiology & Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
4
Department of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO 63110, USA; Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO 63110, USA.
5
Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
6
Department of Neurology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
7
Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO 63110, USA; Division of Biostatistics, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO 63110, USA.
8
Department of Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO 63110, USA; Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO 63110, USA.

Abstract

Amyloid imaging is a valuable tool for research and diagnosis in dementing disorders. Successful use of this tool is limited by the lack of a common standard in the quantification of amyloid imaging data. The Centiloid approach was recently proposed to address this problem and in this work, we report our implementation of this approach and evaluate the impact of differences in underlying image analysis methodologies using both cross-sectional and longitudinal datasets. The Centiloid approach successfully converts quantitative amyloid burden measurements into a common Centiloid scale (CL) and comparable dynamic range. As expected, the Centiloid values derived from different analytical approaches inherit some of the inherent benefits and drawbacks of the underlying approaches, and these differences result in statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences in the variability and group mean values. Because of these differences, even after expression in CL, the 95% specificity amyloid positivity thresholds derived from different analytic approaches varied from 5.7 CL to 11.9 CL, and the reliable worsening threshold varied from -2.0 CL to 11.0 CL. Although this difference is in part due to the dependency of the threshold determination methodology on the statistical characteristics of the measurements. When amyloid measurements obtained from different centers are combined for analysis, one should not expect Centiloid conversion to eliminate all the differences in amyloid burden measurements due to variabilities in underlying acquisition protocols and analysis techniques.

KEYWORDS:

Amyloid imaging; Centiloid; PET; PiB

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center