A Comparison of Partial Volume Correction Techniques for Measuring Change in Serial Amyloid PET SUVR

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Longitudinal PET studies in aging and Alzheimer's disease populations rely on accurate and precise measurements of change over time from serial PET scans. Various methods for partial volume correction (PVC) are commonly applied to such studies, but existing comparisons and validations of these PVC methods have focused on cross-sectional measurements. Rate of change measurements inherently have smaller magnitudes than cross-sectional measurements, so levels of noise amplification due to PVC must be smaller, and it is necessary to re-evaluate methods in this context. Here we compare the relative precision in longitudinal measurements from serial amyloid PET scans when using geometric transfer matrix (GTM) PVC versus the traditional two-compartment (Meltzer-style), three-compartment (Müller-Gärtner-style), and no-PVC approaches. We used two independent implementations of standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) measurement and PVC (one in-house pipeline based on SPM12 and ANTs, and one using FreeSurfer 6.0). For each approach, we also tested longitudinal-specific variants. Overall, we found that measurements using GTM PVC had significantly worse relative precision (unexplained within-subject variability ≈4-8) than those using two-compartment, three-compartment, or no PVC (≈2-4). Longitudinally-stabilized approaches did not improve these properties. This data suggests that GTM PVC methods may be less suitable than traditional approaches when measuring within-person change over time in longitudinal amyloid PET.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)181-195
Number of pages15
JournalJournal of Alzheimer's Disease
Volume67
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Amyloid
Positron-Emission Tomography
Longitudinal Studies
Noise
Alzheimer Disease
Population

Keywords

  • Amyloid PET
  • change over time
  • geometric transfer matrix
  • partial volume correction
  • Pittsburgh Compound B
  • precision
  • SUVR

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Neuroscience(all)
  • Clinical Psychology
  • Geriatrics and Gerontology
  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Cite this

@article{c9eab9b4ad0c433caedfa60951c5991d,
title = "A Comparison of Partial Volume Correction Techniques for Measuring Change in Serial Amyloid PET SUVR",
abstract = "Longitudinal PET studies in aging and Alzheimer's disease populations rely on accurate and precise measurements of change over time from serial PET scans. Various methods for partial volume correction (PVC) are commonly applied to such studies, but existing comparisons and validations of these PVC methods have focused on cross-sectional measurements. Rate of change measurements inherently have smaller magnitudes than cross-sectional measurements, so levels of noise amplification due to PVC must be smaller, and it is necessary to re-evaluate methods in this context. Here we compare the relative precision in longitudinal measurements from serial amyloid PET scans when using geometric transfer matrix (GTM) PVC versus the traditional two-compartment (Meltzer-style), three-compartment (M{\"u}ller-G{\"a}rtner-style), and no-PVC approaches. We used two independent implementations of standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) measurement and PVC (one in-house pipeline based on SPM12 and ANTs, and one using FreeSurfer 6.0). For each approach, we also tested longitudinal-specific variants. Overall, we found that measurements using GTM PVC had significantly worse relative precision (unexplained within-subject variability ≈4-8) than those using two-compartment, three-compartment, or no PVC (≈2-4). Longitudinally-stabilized approaches did not improve these properties. This data suggests that GTM PVC methods may be less suitable than traditional approaches when measuring within-person change over time in longitudinal amyloid PET.",
keywords = "Amyloid PET, change over time, geometric transfer matrix, partial volume correction, Pittsburgh Compound B, precision, SUVR",
author = "Christopher Schwarz and Gunter, {Jeffrey L.} and Val Lowe and Stephen Weigand and Vemuri, {Prashanthi D} and Senjem, {Matthew L.} and Petersen, {Ronald Carl} and Knopman, {David S} and Jack, {Clifford R Jr.}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3233/JAD-180749",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "67",
pages = "181--195",
journal = "Journal of Alzheimer's Disease",
issn = "1387-2877",
publisher = "IOS Press",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Comparison of Partial Volume Correction Techniques for Measuring Change in Serial Amyloid PET SUVR

AU - Schwarz, Christopher

AU - Gunter, Jeffrey L.

AU - Lowe, Val

AU - Weigand, Stephen

AU - Vemuri, Prashanthi D

AU - Senjem, Matthew L.

AU - Petersen, Ronald Carl

AU - Knopman, David S

AU - Jack, Clifford R Jr.

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Longitudinal PET studies in aging and Alzheimer's disease populations rely on accurate and precise measurements of change over time from serial PET scans. Various methods for partial volume correction (PVC) are commonly applied to such studies, but existing comparisons and validations of these PVC methods have focused on cross-sectional measurements. Rate of change measurements inherently have smaller magnitudes than cross-sectional measurements, so levels of noise amplification due to PVC must be smaller, and it is necessary to re-evaluate methods in this context. Here we compare the relative precision in longitudinal measurements from serial amyloid PET scans when using geometric transfer matrix (GTM) PVC versus the traditional two-compartment (Meltzer-style), three-compartment (Müller-Gärtner-style), and no-PVC approaches. We used two independent implementations of standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) measurement and PVC (one in-house pipeline based on SPM12 and ANTs, and one using FreeSurfer 6.0). For each approach, we also tested longitudinal-specific variants. Overall, we found that measurements using GTM PVC had significantly worse relative precision (unexplained within-subject variability ≈4-8) than those using two-compartment, three-compartment, or no PVC (≈2-4). Longitudinally-stabilized approaches did not improve these properties. This data suggests that GTM PVC methods may be less suitable than traditional approaches when measuring within-person change over time in longitudinal amyloid PET.

AB - Longitudinal PET studies in aging and Alzheimer's disease populations rely on accurate and precise measurements of change over time from serial PET scans. Various methods for partial volume correction (PVC) are commonly applied to such studies, but existing comparisons and validations of these PVC methods have focused on cross-sectional measurements. Rate of change measurements inherently have smaller magnitudes than cross-sectional measurements, so levels of noise amplification due to PVC must be smaller, and it is necessary to re-evaluate methods in this context. Here we compare the relative precision in longitudinal measurements from serial amyloid PET scans when using geometric transfer matrix (GTM) PVC versus the traditional two-compartment (Meltzer-style), three-compartment (Müller-Gärtner-style), and no-PVC approaches. We used two independent implementations of standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) measurement and PVC (one in-house pipeline based on SPM12 and ANTs, and one using FreeSurfer 6.0). For each approach, we also tested longitudinal-specific variants. Overall, we found that measurements using GTM PVC had significantly worse relative precision (unexplained within-subject variability ≈4-8) than those using two-compartment, three-compartment, or no PVC (≈2-4). Longitudinally-stabilized approaches did not improve these properties. This data suggests that GTM PVC methods may be less suitable than traditional approaches when measuring within-person change over time in longitudinal amyloid PET.

KW - Amyloid PET

KW - change over time

KW - geometric transfer matrix

KW - partial volume correction

KW - Pittsburgh Compound B

KW - precision

KW - SUVR

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85059835372&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85059835372&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3233/JAD-180749

DO - 10.3233/JAD-180749

M3 - Article

C2 - 30475770

AN - SCOPUS:85059835372

VL - 67

SP - 181

EP - 195

JO - Journal of Alzheimer's Disease

JF - Journal of Alzheimer's Disease

SN - 1387-2877

IS - 1

ER -