Agreement of amyloid PET and CSF biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease on Lumipulse

Daniel Alcolea, Jordi Pegueroles, Laia Muñoz, Valle Camacho, Diego López-Mora, Alejandro Fernández-León, Nathalie Le Bastard, Els Huyck, Alicia Nadal, Verónica Olmedo, Frederic Sampedro, Victor Montal, Eduard Vilaplana, Jordi Clarimón, Rafael Blesa, Juan Fortea, Alberto Lleó, Daniel Alcolea, Jordi Pegueroles, Laia Muñoz, Valle Camacho, Diego López-Mora, Alejandro Fernández-León, Nathalie Le Bastard, Els Huyck, Alicia Nadal, Verónica Olmedo, Frederic Sampedro, Victor Montal, Eduard Vilaplana, Jordi Clarimón, Rafael Blesa, Juan Fortea, Alberto Lleó

Abstract

Objective: To determine the cutoffs that optimized the agreement between 18 F-Florbetapir positron emission tomography (PET) and Aβ1-42, Aβ1-40, tTau, pTau and their ratios measured in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) on the LUMIPULSE G600II instrument, we quantified the levels of these four biomarkers in 94 CSF samples from participants of the Sant Pau Initiative on Neurodegeneration (SPIN cohort) using the Lumipulse G System with available 18 F-Florbetapir imaging.

Methods: Participants had mild cognitive impairment (n = 35), AD dementia (n = 12), other dementias or neurodegenerative diseases (n = 41), or were cognitively normal controls (n = 6). Levels of Aβ1-42 were standardized to certified reference material. Amyloid scans were assessed visually and through automated quantification. We determined the cutoffs of CSF biomarkers that optimized their agreement with 18 F-Florbetapir PET and evaluated concordance between markers of the amyloid category.

Results: Aβ1-42, tTau and pTau (but not Aβ1-40) and the ratios with Aβ1-42 had good diagnostic agreement with 18 F-Florbetapir PET. As a marker of amyloid pathology, the Aβ1-42/Aβ1-40 ratio had higher agreement and better correlation with amyloid PET than Aβ1-42 alone.

Interpretation: CSF biomarkers measured with the Lumipulse G System show good agreement with amyloid imaging in a clinical setting with heterogeneous presentations of neurological disorders. Combination of Aβ1-42 with Aβ1-40 increases the agreement between markers of amyloid pathology.

Conflict of interest statement

D.A. participated in advisory boards from Fujirebio‐Europe and received speaker honoraria from Fujirebio‐Europe, Nutricia and from Krka Farmacéutica S.L. R.B. participated in advisory boards from Lilly and Nutricia, and he received speaker honoraria and travel funding from Novartis and Nutricia. A.L. participated in advisory boards from Fujirebio‐Europe, Nutricia, Biogen, and received speaker honoraria from Lilly. N.LB. and E.H. are employed by Fujirebio Europe. N.V. A.N. and V.O. are employed by Fujirebio Iberia, S.L.

© 2019 The Authors. Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc on behalf of American Neurological Association.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Receiver operating characteristic analysis of individual (A) and combined (B) CSF biomarkers' diagnostic utility to detect amyloid visual status. AUC, Area under the curve.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Accuracy of all possible cutoff levels of individual (A, C, E) and combined (B, D, F) CSF biomarkers. Only those biomarkers that yielded areas under the curve above 0.70 and their ratios with Aβ1‐42 are shown. Vertical dotted lines indicate cutoffs with maximum Youden J index. PPA, Positive Percent Agreement; NPA, Negative Percent Agreement; OPA, Overall Percent Agreement.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Agreement of visual amyloid status with single and combined CSF biomarkers. Panels A, B and C display scatterplots of CSF biomarker levels. Dashed lines indicate cutoffs that yielded maximum Youden J Index in the receiver operating characteristic analysis for each biomarker or ratio. PPA, Positive Percent Agreement; NPA, Negative Percent Agreement; OPA, Overall Percent Agreement.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Agreement between raters' visual classification and amyloid quantification. OPA, Overall Percent Agreement; SUVR, Standardized Uptake Value Ratio. Panel A shows the agreement between amyloid quantification and rater's individual and global visual assessments. Panel B shows the agreement between amyloid quantification and visual assessment stratified by the number of raters that assessed scans as positive.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Scatterplots and correlations of amyloid quantification values with individual biomarkers (A, C, E) and ratios (B, D, F). Correlation between SUVR values and CSF biomarkers was assessed by fitting quadratic models for all participants (black) and after stratifying by visual amyloid status (red and green). Shaded areas indicate 95% confidence intervals. Dashed vertical lines indicate the SUVR cutoff of 1.11 as in Landau et al. Horizontal lines correspond to cutoffs for each CSF biomarker and ratio. PPA, NPA and OPA values correspond to the agreement between amyloid quantification and CSF biomarkers. PPA, Positive Percent Agreement; NPA, Negative Percent Agreement; OPA, Overall Percent Agreement; SUVR, Standardized Uptake Value Ratio.

References

    1. Jack CR, Bennett DA, Blennow K, et al. NIA‐AA Research Framework: toward a biological definition of Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's Dement 2018;14:535–562.
    1. Toledo JB, Bjerke M, Da X, et al. Nonlinear association between cerebrospinal fluid and florbetapir F‐18 β‐amyloid measures across the spectrum of Alzheimer disease. JAMA Neurol 2015;4283:1–11.
    1. Hansson O, Seibyl J, Stomrud E, et al. CSF biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease concord with amyloid‐β PET and predict clinical progression: a study of fully automated immunoassays in BioFINDER and ADNI cohorts. Alzheimer's Dement 2018;14:1470–1481.
    1. Schindler SE, Gray JD, Gordon BA, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers measured by Elecsys assays compared to amyloid imaging. Alzheimer's Dement 2018;14;1460–1469.
    1. Fagan AM, Head D, Shah AR, et al. Decreased cerebrospinal fluid Abeta(42) correlates with brain atrophy in cognitively normal elderly. Ann Neurol 2009;65:176–183.
    1. Illán‐Gala I, Pegueroles J, Montal V, et al. Challenges associated with biomarker‐based classification systems for Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's Dement 2018;10:346–357.
    1. Janelidze S, Zetterberg H, Mattsson N, et al. CSF Ab42/Ab40 and Ab42/Ab38 ratios: better diagnostic markers of Alzheimer disease. Ann Clin Transl Neurol 2016;3:154–165.
    1. Janelidze S, Pannee J, Mikulskis A, et al. Concordance between different amyloid immunoassays and visual amyloid positron emission tomographic assessment. JAMA Neurol 2017;74:1492–1501.
    1. Lewczuk P, Matzen A, Blennow K, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid Aβ42/40 corresponds better than Aβ42 to amyloid PET in Alzheimer's disease. J Alzheimers Dis 2017;55:813–822.
    1. Kuhlmann J, Andreasson U, Pannee J, et al. CSF Aβ 1–42 – an excellent but complicated Alzheimer's biomarker – a route to standardisation. Clin Chim Acta 2017;467:27–33.
    1. Alcolea D, Carmona‐Iragui M, Suárez‐Calvet M, et al. Relationship between β‐secretase, inflammation and core cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease. J Alzheimers Dis 2014;42:157–167.
    1. Alcolea D, Vilaplana E, Pegueroles J, et al. Relationship between cortical thickness and cerebrospinal fluid YKL‐40 in predementia stages of Alzheimer's disease. Neurobiol Aging 2015;36:2018–2023.
    1. Carmona‐Iragui M, Fernández‐Arcos A, Alcolea D, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid anti‐amyloid‐β autoantibodies and amyloid PET in cerebral amyloid angiopathy‐related inflammation. J Alzheimer's Dis 2015;50:1–7.
    1. Alcolea D, Vilaplana E, Suárez‐Calvet M, et al. CSF sAPPβ, YKL‐40, and neurofilament light in frontotemporal lobar degeneration. Neurology 2017;89:178–188.
    1. Carmona‐Iragui M, Balasa M, Benejam B, et al. Cerebral amyloid angiopathy in Down syndrome and sporadic and autosomal‐dominant Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's Dement 2017;13:1251–1260.
    1. Rieck JR, Rodrigue KM, Kennedy KM, et al. The effect of beta‐amyloid on face processing in young and old adults: a multivariate analysis of the BOLD signal. Hum Brain Mapp 2015;36:2514–2526.
    1. Landau SM, Mintun MA, Joshi AD, et al. Amyloid deposition, hypometabolism, and longitudinal cognitive decline. Ann Neurol 2012;72:578–586.
    1. Bjerke M, Portelius E, Minthon L, et al. Confounding factors influencing amyloid Beta concentration in cerebrospinal fluid. Int J Alzheimers Dis 2010;2010:1–11.
    1. Hansson O, Mikulskis A, Fagan AM, et al. The impact of preanalytical variables on measuring cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease diagnosis: a review. Alzheimer's Dement 2018;14:1313–1333.
    1. Bartlett JW, Frost C, Mattsson N, et al. Determining cut‐points for Alzheimer's disease biomarkers: statistical issues, methods and challenges. Biomark Med 2012;6:391–400.
    1. Lleó A, Irwin DJ, Illán‐Gala I, et al. A 2‐step cerebrospinal algorithm for the selection of frontotemporal lobar degeneration subtypes. JAMA Neurol 2018;75:738–745.
    1. Pannee J, Portelius E, Minthon L, et al. Reference measurement procedure for CSF amyloid beta (Aβ)1–42 and the CSF Aβ1‐42/Aβ1‐40 ratio ‐ a cross‐validation study against amyloid PET. J. Neurochem 2016;139:651–658.
    1. Niemantsverdriet E, Ottoy J, Somers C, et al. The cerebrospinal fluid AB1–42/AB1–40 ratio improves concordance with amyloid‐PET for diagnosing Alzheimer's disease in a clinical setting. J Alzheimer's Dis 2017;60:561–576.
    1. Wiltfang J, Esselmann H, Bibl M, et al. Amyloid beta peptide ratio 42/40 but not A beta 42 correlates with phospho‐Tau in patients with low‐ and high‐CSF A beta 40 load. J Neurochem 2007;101:1053–1059.
    1. Dumurgier J, Schraen S, Gabelle A, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid amyloid‐β 42/40 ratio in clinical setting of memory centers: a multicentric study. Alzheimer's Res Ther 2015;7.
    1. Gervaise‐Henry C, Watfa G, Albuisson E, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid Aβ42/Aβ40 as a means to limiting tube‐ and storage‐dependent pre‐analytical variability in clinical setting. J Alzheimers Dis 2017;57:437–445.
    1. Toombs J, Foiani MS, Wellington H, et al. Amyloid β peptides are differentially vulnerable to preanalytical surface exposure, an effect incompletely mitigated by the use of ratios. Alzheimer's Dement 2018;10:311–321.
    1. Delaby C, Muñoz L, Torres S, et al. Impact of CSF storage volume on the analysis of Alzheimer's disease biomarkers on an automated platform. Clin Chim Acta 2019;490:98–101.

Source: PubMed

3
S'abonner