RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Evaluation of ComBat harmonization for reducing across-tracer biases in regional amyloid PET analyses
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.06.14.24308952
DO 10.1101/2024.06.14.24308952
A1 Yang, Braden
A1 Earnest, Tom
A1 Kumar, Sayantan
A1 Kothapalli, Deydeep
A1 Benzinger, Tammie
A1 Gordon, Brian
A1 Sotiras, Aristeidis
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/06/15/2024.06.14.24308952.abstract
AB Background Differences in amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) radiotracer pharmacokinetics and binding properties lead to discrepancies in amyloid-β uptake estimates. Harmonization of tracer-specific biases is crucial for optimal performance of downstream tasks. Here, we investigated the efficacy of ComBat, a data-driven harmonization model, for reducing tracer-specific biases in regional amyloid PET measurements from [18F]-florbetapir (FBP) and [11C]-Pittsburgh Compound-B (PiB).Methods One-hundred-thirteen head-to-head FBP-PiB scan pairs, scanned from the same subject within ninety days, were selected from the Open Access Series of Imaging Studies 3 (OASIS-3) dataset. The Centiloid scale, ComBat with no covariates, ComBat with biological covariates, and GAM-ComBat with biological covariates were used to harmonize both global and regional amyloid standardized uptake value ratios (SUVR). Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and mean standardized absolute error (MsAE) were computed to measure the absolute agreement between tracers. Additionally, longitudinal amyloid SUVRs from an anti-amyloid drug trial were simulated using linear mixed effects modeling. Differences in rates-of-change between simulated treatment and placebo groups were tested, and change in statistical power/Type-I error after harmonization was quantified.Results In the head-to-head tracer comparison, the best ICC and MsAE were achieved after harmonizing with ComBat with no covariates for the global summary SUVR. ComBat with no covariates also performed the best in harmonizing regional SUVRs. In the clinical trial simulation, harmonization with both Centiloid and ComBat increased statistical power of detecting true rate-of-change differences between groups and decreased false discovery rate in the absence of a treatment effect. The greatest benefit of harmonization was observed when groups exhibited differing FPB-to-PiB proportions.Conclusions ComBat outperformed the Centiloid scale in harmonizing both global and regional amyloid estimates. Additionally, ComBat improved the detection of rate-of-change differences between clinical trial groups. Our findings suggest that ComBat is a viable alternative to Centiloid for harmonizing regional amyloid PET analyses.Competing Interest StatementAS reported receiving personal fees from BrightFocus for serving as a grant reviewer and stock from TheraPanacea outside the submitted work. All remaining authors have no conflicting interests to report.Funding StatementBY was supported by the Imaging Science Pathways NIH T32 EB014855. AS was supported by NIH award R01 AG067103 and BrightFocus Foundation grant ADR A2021042S. Computations were performed using the facilities of the Washington University Research Computing and Informatics Facility, which were partially funded by NIH grants S10OD025200, 1S10RR022984-01A1 and 1S10OD018091-01. Additional support is provided by The McDonnell Center for Systems Neuroscience. Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Data utilized in this study were obtained from the OASIS-3 open access dataset. Data can be requested at https://sites.wustl.edu/oasisbrains.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesPETpositron emission tomographyFBP[18F]-florbetapirPiB[11C]-Pittsburgh Compound-BOASIS-3Open Access Series of Imaging Studies 3SUVRstandardized uptake value ratioICCintraclass correlation coefficientMsAEmean standardized absolute errorADAlzheimer’s diseaseROIregion-of-interestCLCentiloidMRImagnetic resonance imagingAPOEapolipoprotein-ε4GAMgeneralized additive modelLMElinear mixed effectsCDRClinical Dementia Rating.