4.7 Article

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

期刊

ALZHEIMERS & DEMENTIA
卷 14, 期 11, 页码 1470-1481

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jalz.2018.01.010

关键词

CSF biomarkers; Amyloid PET concordance; Clinical progression; Biomarker validation; Amyloid-beta (1-42); Total tau (tTau); Phosphorylated tau (pTau); Cutoffs

资金

  1. Roche Diagnostics GmbH

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: We studied whether fully automated Elecsys cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) immunoassay results were concordant with positron emission tomography (PET) and predicted clinical progression, even with cutoffs established in an independent cohort. Methods: Cutoffs for Elecsys amyloid-beta(1-42) (A beta), total tau/A beta(1-42), and phosphorylated tau/A beta(1-42) were defined against [F-18]flutemetamol PET in Swedish BioFINDER (n = 277) and validated against [F-18]florbetapir PET in Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (n = 646). Clinical progression in patients with mild cognitive impairment (n = 619) was studied. Results: CSF total tau/A beta(1-42) and phosphorylated tau/A beta(1-42) ratios were highly concordant with PET classification in BioFINDER (overall percent agreement: 90%; area under the curve: 94%). The CSF biomarker statuses established by predefined cutoffs were highly concordant with PET classification in Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (overall percent agreement: 89%-90%; area under the curves: 96%) and predicted greater 2-year clinical decline in patients with mild cognitive impairment. Strikingly, tau/A beta ratios were as accurate as semiquantitative PET image assessment in predicting visual read-based outcomes. Discussion: Elecsys CSF biomarker assays may provide reliable alternatives to PET in Alzheimer's disease diagnosis. (C) 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of the Alzheimer's Association.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据