Klunk, W. E. & Mathis, C. A. The future of amyloid-beta imaging: a tale of radionuclides and tracer proliferation. Curr. Opin. Neurol. 21, 683-687

Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA.
Current Opinion in Neurology (Impact Factor: 5.31). 01/2009; 21(6):683-7. DOI: 10.1097/WCO.0b013e3283168e1a
Source: PubMed


This review will focus on the coming proliferation of amyloid-beta imaging tracers and give an opinion on how the Alzheimer's disease field can develop a systematic means of evaluating which tracers are useful and how the useful tracers compare to each other.
Several new tracers have been reported to be useful for human amyloid-beta imaging. The most recent of these are labeled with fluorine-18. Compared with the 20 min half-life of carbon-11 used in the most widely used tracer, Pittsburgh Compound-B, the 110 min half-life of fluorine-18 allows for wider utilization in research and clinical settings.
It is likely that more than one fluorine-18-labeled tracer will come into common use. The use of preclinical and clinical 'bridging studies' to [C-11]Pittsburgh Compound-B could be a means to determine whether the sizable body of knowledge already gained in [C-11]Pittsburgh Compound-B studies can be applied to the understanding of these new tracers and to form a basis for the comparison among them. This approach could save resources and help sort out a potentially bewildering onslaught of new amyloid-beta imaging tracers.

Download full-text


Available from: Chester A Mathis,
  • Source
    • "Neuroimaging biomarkers provide prognostic value for conversion from MCI to AD, because MCI patients who are Ab positive are highly likely to progress, whereas those who are Ab negative are not [18] [19]. A major limitation to Pittsburgh compound B is its short half-life (about 20 minutes), which limits a broader application [20], but is not as significant of a limitation with florbetapir F18 [21]. Positron emission tomography (PET) is cost prohibitive in routine settings, including screening into clinical trials. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is significantly hampered by the lack of easily accessible biomarkers that can detect disease presence and predict disease risk reliably. Fluid biomarkers of AD currently provide indications of disease stage; however, they are not robust predictors of disease progression or treatment response, and most are measured in cerebrospinal fluid, which limits their applicability. With these aspects in mind, the aim of this article is to underscore the concerted efforts of the Blood-Based Biomarker Interest Group, an international working group of experts in the field. The points addressed include: (1) the major challenges in the development of blood-based biomarkers of AD, including patient heterogeneity, inclusion of the “right” control population, and the blood–brain barrier; (2) the need for a clear definition of the purpose of the individual markers (e.g., prognostic, diagnostic, or monitoring therapeutic efficacy); (3) a critical evaluation of the ongoing biomarker approaches; and (4) highlighting the need for standardization of preanalytical variables and analytical methodologies used by the field.
    Alzheimer's & dementia: the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 01/2014; 10(1):115–131. DOI:10.1016/j.jalz.2013.01.013 · 12.41 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Currently, the compound at the most advanced stage of validation is the Pittsburgh compound B (PIB), a carbon-11-labelled benzothiazole derivative, which has been recently shown to provide information as reliable as CSF A␤ 42 [135]. More than 3000 subjects at 40 centers have been examined with C11-PIB [136]. From quantitative image evaluation a cut-off and simplified rating of PIB-negative vs PIB-positive has been developed to facilitate the use of PIB as a diagnostic marker for the presence of AD [137]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Older persons with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) feature neurobiological Alzheimer's Disease (AD) in 50% to 70% of the cases and develop dementia within the next 5 to 7 years. Current evidence suggests that biochemical, neuroimaging, electrophysiological, and neuropsychological markers can track the disease over time since the MCI stage (also called prodromal AD). The amount of evidence supporting their validity is of variable strength. We have reviewed the current literature and categorized evidence of validity into three classes: Class A, availability of multiple serial studies; Class B a single serial study or multiple cross sectional studies of patients with increasing disease severity from MCI to probable AD; and class C, multiple cross sectional studies of patients in the dementia stage, not including the MCI stage. Several Class A studies suggest that episodic memory and semantic fluency are the most reliable neuropsychological markers of progression. Hippocampal atrophy, ventricular volume and whole brain atrophy are structural MRI markers with class A evidence. Resting-state fMRI and connectivity, and diffusion MR markers in the medial temporal white matter (parahippocampus and posterior cingulum) and hippocampus are promising but require further validation. Change in amyloid load in MCI patients warrant further investigations, e.g. over longer period of time, to assess its value as marker of disease progression. Several spectral markers of resting state EEG rhythms that might reflect neurodegenerative processes in the prodromal stage of AD (EEG power density, functional coupling, spectral coherence, and synchronization) suffer from lack of appropriately designed studies. Although serial studies on late event-related potentials (ERPs) in healthy elders or MCI patients are inconclusive, others tracking disease progression and effects of cholinesterase inhibiting drugs in AD, and cross-sectional including MCI or predicting development of AD offer preliminary evidence of validity as a marker of disease progression from the MCI stage. CSF Markers, such as Aβ 1-42, t-tau and p-tau are valuable markers which support the clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. However, these markers are not sensitive to disease progression and cannot be used to monitor the severity of Alzheimer's disease. For Isoprostane F2 some evidence exists that its increase correlates with the progression and the severity of AD.
    Journal of Alzheimer's disease: JAD 01/2011; 26 Suppl 3:159-99. DOI:10.3233/JAD-2011-0043 · 4.15 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Tel.: +310 825 0291; +Fax: 310 825 3910; E-mail: GSmall@mednet.ucla.edu first carbon-11-labeled PET radiotracer intended for human in vivo amyloid-beta imaging known as Pittsburgh Compound-B (PIB) was presented in preliminary form in 2002, with the full report in 2004 (see [9] for review) 1 . "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 2-(1-{6-[(2-[fluorine-18]fluoroethyl)(methyl)amino]-2-naphthyl}-ethylidene)malononitrile (FDDNP) is the first positron emission tomography (PET) molecular imaging probe to visualize Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology in living humans. The most unique features of FDDNP are that (1) it is the only currently available radiotracer to image neurofibrillary tangles, beside amyloid aggregates, in living humans; and (2) it is also the only radiotracer to visualize AD pathology in the hippocampal region of living humans. In this article, we discuss FDDNP's unique ability to image tau pathology in living humans. Emphasizing tau pathology imaging capability using FDDNP in AD, as well as other tauopathies, is timely and beneficial considering that (1) post mortem histopathological studies using human specimens have consistently demonstrated that neurofibrillary tangles, compared with amyloid plaques, are better correlated with the disease severity and neuronal death; and (2) recently reported clinical trial failures of disease-modifying drugs in development, based on the amyloid-cascade hypothesis, suggest that some of the basic assumptions of AD causality warrant reassessment and redirection.
    Journal of Alzheimer's disease: JAD 01/2011; 26 Suppl 3(Suppl 3):135-45. DOI:10.3233/JAD-2011-0008 · 4.15 Impact Factor
Show more