Head‐to‐Head Comparison of Tau and Amyloid Positron Emission Tomography Visual Reads for Differential Diagnosis of Neurodegenerative Disorders: An International, Multicenter Study

David N. Soleimani‐Meigooni,Ruben Smith,Karine Provost,Orit H. Lesman‐Segev,Isabel Elaine Allen,Miranda K. Chen,Hanna Cho,Lauren Edwards,Shorena Janelidze,Renaud La Joie,Nidhi Mundada,Rik Ossenkoppele,Erik Stomrud,Olof Strandberg,Amelia Strom,Adam L. Boxer,Jeffrey L. Dage,Maria Luisa Gorno‐Tempini,Joel H. Kramer,Bruce L. Miller,Julio C. Rojas,Howard J. Rosen,Chul H. Lyoo,Oskar Hansson,Gil D. Rabinovici

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.27008

IF: 11.2

2024-06-20

Annals of Neurology

Abstract:Accuracy of diagnosing Alzheimer's disease (AD) is compared between amyloid‐PET visual reads and tau‐PET visual reads with either medial temporal lobe binding (tau‐MTL+) or with posterolateral temporal or extra‐temporal cortical binding (tau‐CTX+) as the minimum threshold for an AD tau positive scan. Amyloid‐ and tau‐PET visual reads have similar sensitivity and specificity for detecting AD in cognitively impaired participants. Tau‐CTX+ increases specificity for AD, but with significant loss of sensitivity for mild cognitive impairment due to AD (MCI‐AD). Tau‐MTL+ increases sensitivity for AD, but there is lower specificity for MCI‐AD. Objective We compared the accuracy of amyloid and [18F]Flortaucipir (FTP) tau positron emission tomography (PET) visual reads for distinguishing patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia with fluid biomarker support of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Methods Participants with FTP‐PET, amyloid‐PET, and diagnosis of dementia‐AD (n = 102), MCI‐AD (n = 41), non‐AD diseases (n = 76), and controls (n = 20) were included. AD status was determined independent of PET by cerebrospinal fluid or plasma biomarkers. The mean age was 66.9 years, and 44.8% were women. Three readers interpreted scans blindly and independently. Amyloid‐PET was classified as positive/negative using tracer‐specific criteria. FTP‐PET was classified as positive with medial temporal lobe (MTL) binding as the minimum uptake indicating AD tau (tau‐MTL+), positive with posterolateral temporal or extratemporal cortical binding in an AD‐like pattern (tau‐CTX+), or negative. The majority of scan interpretations were used to calculate diagnostic accuracy of visual reads in detecting MCI/dementia with fluid biomarker support for AD (MCI/dementia‐AD). Results Sensitivity of amyloid‐PET for MCI/dementia‐AD was 95.8% (95% confidence interval 91.1–98.4%), which was comparable to tau‐CTX+ 92.3% (86.7–96.1%, p = 0.67) and tau‐MTL+ 97.2% (93.0–99.2%, p = 0.27). Specificity of amyloid‐PET for biomarker‐negative healthy and disease controls was 84.4% (75.5–91.0%), which was like tau‐CTX+ 88.5% (80.4–94.1%, p = 0.34), and trended toward being higher than tau‐MTL+ 75.0% (65.1–83.3%, p = 0.08). Tau‐CTX+ had higher specificity than tau‐MTL+ (p = 0.0002), but sensitivity was lower (p = 0.02), driven by decreased sensitivity for MCI‐AD (80.5% [65.1–91.2] vs. 95.1% [83.5–99.4], p = 0.03). Interpretation Amyloid‐ and tau‐PET visual reads have similar sensitivity/specificity for detecting AD in cognitively impaired patients. Visual tau‐PET interpretations requiring cortical binding outside MTL increase specificity, but lower sensitivity for MCI‐AD. ANN NEUROL 2024

neurosciences,clinical neurology