| Title: |
Digital detector PET/CT increases Centiloid measures of amyloid in Alzheimer's disease: A head-to-head comparison of cameras |
| Authors: |
Gillman, A; Bourgeat, P; Cox, T; Villemagne, VL; Fripp, J; Huang, K; Williams, R; Shishegar, R; O’Keefe, G; Li, S; Krishnadas, N; Feizpour, A; Bozinovski, S; Rowe, CC; Doré, V |
| Publisher Information: |
SAGE Publications |
| Publication Year: |
2025 |
| Collection: |
The University of Melbourne: Digital Repository |
| Description: |
BACKGROUND: The introduction of therapeutics for Alzheimer's disease has led to increased interest in precisely quantifying amyloid-β (Aβ) burden for diagnosis, treatment monitoring, and further clinical research. Recent positron emission tomography (PET) hardware innovations including digital detectors have led to superior resolution and sensitivity, improving quantitative accuracy. However, the effect of PET scanner on Centiloid remains relatively unexplored and is assumed to be minimized by harmonizing PET resolutions. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the differences in Centiloid between scanners in a paired cohort. METHODS: 36 participants from the Australian Imaging, Biomarker and Lifestyle study (AIBL) cohort were scanned within a year on two scanners. Each participant underwent 18F-NAV4694 imaging on two of the three scanners investigated, the Siemens Vision, the Siemens mCT and the Philips Gemini. We compared Aβ Centiloid quantification between scanners and assessed the effectiveness of post-reconstruction PET resolution harmonization. We further compared the scanner differences in target sub-regions and with different reference regions to assess spatial variability. RESULTS: Centiloid from the Vision camera was found to be significantly higher compared to the Gemini and mCT; the difference was greater at high-Centiloid levels. Post-reconstruction resolution harmonization only accounted for and corrected ∼20% of the Centiloid (CL) difference between scanners. We further demonstrated that residual differences have effects that vary spatially between different subregions of the Centiloid mask. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated that the type of PET scanner that a participant is scanned on affects Centiloid quantification, even when scanner resolution is harmonized. We conclude by highlighting the need for further investigation into harmonization techniques that consider scanner differences. |
| Document Type: |
article in journal/newspaper |
| Language: |
English |
| ISSN: |
1387-2877 |
| Relation: |
https://hdl.handle.net/11343/365475 |
| Availability: |
https://hdl.handle.net/11343/365475 |
| Rights: |
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 ; CC BY |
| Accession Number: |
edsbas.25801BEA |
| Database: |
BASE |