Cross‐sectional and longitudinal comparison of 18F‐MK6240 and 18F‐Flortaucipir in populations matched for centiloid, age and MMSE

Abstract Background Longitudinal tau quantification may provide a useful outcome measure in disease‐specific therapeutic trials. Different tau PET tracers may have different sensitivity to longitudinal changes, but without a head‐to‐head comparison, equating results from different cohorts using different tracers can be biased. In this study, we aim to minimise this bias by matching participants in two cohorts imaged using 18F‐MK6240 and 18F‐Flortaucipir (FTP). Method A subset of 93 participants from AIBL and 93 from ADNI, imaged at baseline and 1 year later using 18F‐MK6240 and 18F‐FTP, respectively, were matched based on baseline clinical diagnosis, MMSE, age, and Centiloid value (CL). PET images were analysed with CapAIBL. Amyloid positivity (+/‐) was defined based on a threshold of 25CL. Subjects were grouped as 34 cognitively unimpaired amyloid negative (CU‐) and 24 positive (CU+), 18 mild cognitive impairment positive (MCI+) and 17 Alzheimer’s disease positive (AD+). Tracer retention was measured in the mesial temporal (Me), meta‐temporal (MT), temporoparietal (Te) and rest of the cortex (R). T‐tests were employed to assess group separation at baseline using SUVR and longitudinally using SUVR/Yr. Result As per selection criteria, there were no significant differences in age, MMSE or Centiloid between the cohorts using 18F‐MK6240 or 18F‐FTP in each subgroups. Baseline SUVR were significantly different between CU‐/CU+, CU+/MCI+ and CU+/AD+ in all regions for both tracers, except for CU‐/CU+ in R for 18F‐MK6240 (Figure 1). Using 18F‐MK6240, rate of change in CU+ was significantly higher than CU‐ in MT and Te, and both MCI+ and AD+ were higher than CU+ in R (Figure 2.Left). Using 18F‐FTP, rate of change in MCI+ was significantly higher than CU+ in Te, and AD+ higher than CU+ in MT, Te and R (Figure 2.Right). Conclusion In our matched cohorts using 18F‐MK6240 or 18F‐FTP, we found that, at baseline, both tracers can detect significant differences between clinical groups. However, 18F‐MK6240 was able to detect higher rates of accumulation at preclinical stages (CU+). These results in well‐matched cohorts indicate that 18F‐MK6240 might be a more sensitive tracer to detect early accumulation. Longitudinal head‐to‐head comparison will be required to confirm these results.