Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • View or Listen to JNM Podcast
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
Research ArticleClinical Investigation

Direct Comparison of the Tau PET Tracers 18F-Flortaucipir and 18F-MK-6240 in Human Subjects

Alexandra Gogola, Davneet S. Minhas, Victor L. Villemagne, Ann D. Cohen, James M. Mountz, Tharick A. Pascoal, Charles M. Laymon, N. Scott Mason, Milos D. Ikonomovic, Chester A. Mathis, Beth E. Snitz, Oscar L. Lopez, William E. Klunk and Brian J. Lopresti
Journal of Nuclear Medicine January 2022, 63 (1) 108-116; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.120.254961
Alexandra Gogola
1Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Davneet S. Minhas
1Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Victor L. Villemagne
2Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ann D. Cohen
2Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
James M. Mountz
1Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tharick A. Pascoal
2Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Charles M. Laymon
1Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;
3Department of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
N. Scott Mason
1Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Milos D. Ikonomovic
2Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;
4Department of Neurology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Chester A. Mathis
1Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Beth E. Snitz
4Department of Neurology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Oscar L. Lopez
4Department of Neurology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
William E. Klunk
2Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Brian J. Lopresti
1Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Additional Files
  • Figure
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
  • FIGURE 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 1.

    18F-flortaucipir (18F-FTP) and 18F-MK-6240 SUVR images from 6 subjects representing the range of tau pathology observed in our cohort. From left to right: subject showing no evidence of tau pathology (NC7); cognitively normal subject showing early Braak stage pathology (NC4); atypical AD subject with tau pathology in MTL and evidence of focal uptake in Braak V (AD1); and 3 AD subjects showing progression of increasingly severe tau pathology culminating in widespread neocortical involvement in AD4. 18F-flortaucipir and 18F-MK-6240 are shown on common scale (SUVR, 0.5–4.0). 18F-FTP images are repeated (row 3) on compressed scale (SUVR, 0.5–2.75) so that subtle differences may be more appreciated. AWOC = abnormal without complaint; GBL = global; MMSE = mini-mental state examination.

  • FIGURE 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 2.

    Comparison of 18F-flortaucipir and 18F-MK-6240 SUVR outcomes across 6 Braak stage regions, showing linear regression of values. For each Braak stage region, dynamic range of SUVR outcomes is indicated. Data point representing AD1 is shown to illustrate dilution of visually evident focal tau signal in large Braak-stage regions. CER = cerebellum.

  • FIGURE 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 3.

    Comparison of off-target binding of 18F-flortaucipir (18F-FTP) and 18F-MK-6240 in choroid plexus, striatum, and meninges. Shown are representative images of typical patterns of off-target retention in these regions (top). Distribution of SUVR outcomes is also shown (below).

  • FIGURE 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 4.

    18F-flortaucipir (18F-FTP), 18F-MK-6240, CT, and MR images of subjects with hyperostosis frontalis interna (HFI) (first row); HFI and highly calcified pineal gland (second row); marked meningeal ossification and calcification in falx cerebri (third row); and HFI and bony lesion of skull with several small meningeal calcifications (fourth row).

  • FIGURE 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 5.

    Voxel-based comparison of 18F-flortaucipir and 18F-MK-6240 retention. Shown are T-maps of significant contrasts (P < 0.05, uncorrected [T > 1.76]), where 18F-FTP > 18F-MK-6240 (A) and 18F-MK-6240 > 18F-FTP (B). T-maps are shown overlaid on average MR image generated from 15 subjects.

  • FIGURE 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 6.

    Grouping of FreeSurfer regions to correspond to Braak pathologic stages (I–VI).

Tables

  • Figures
  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    TABLE 1

    Subject Characteristics

    Subject no.Age (y)SexMMSEEducation (y)Scan interval (d)Diagnosis
    AD183M20162Probable AD (atypical)
    AD268M23146Probable AD
    AD386M15121Probable AD
    AD453M9122Probable AD
    AD564F29121Probable AD
    MCI177M221220MCI-amnestic + other
    NC179F24127Abnormal w/o complaint
    NC279F301852Normal cognition
    NC379F281454Abnormal w/o complaint
    NC476F301448Abnormal w/o complaint
    NC576M221126Abnormal w/o complaint
    NC673F301824Abnormal w/o complaint
    NC782F301430Abnormal w/o complaint
    NC875F301419Normal cognition
    NC969F301649Normal cognition
    • MMSE = mini-mental state examination; w/o = without.

    • View popup
    TABLE 2

    Visual Assessments of 18F-Flortaucipir and 18F-MK-6240 Scans

    MTLNEOPiB GBL
    Subject no.FTPMKFTPMKSUVRCentiloidsAβ status
    AD1POSPOSPOSPOS2.53132POS
    AD2POSPOSPOSPOS2.42112POS
    AD3POSPOSPOSPOS2.3103POS
    AD4POSPOSPOSPOS2.47129POS
    AD5POSPOSPOSPOS2.51121POS
    MCI1POSPOSNEGNEG1.240NEG
    NC1POSPOSPOSPOS1.5650POS
    NC2NEGNEGNEGNEG1.13−2NEG
    NC3NEGNEGNEGNEG1.13−10NEG
    NC4POSPOSPOSPOS1.3119NEG
    NC5NEGNEGNEGNEG1.144NEG
    NC6NEGNEGNEGNEG1.189NEG
    NC7NEGNEGNEGNEG1.16−5NEG
    NC8NEGNEGNEGNEG1.214NEG
    NC9NEGNEGNEGNEG1.296NEG
    • FTP = 18F-flortaucipir; MK = 18F-MK-6240; POS = positive; NEG = negative.

    • View popup
    TABLE 3

    Assessments of Interrater Reliability of Visual Ratings

    RegionTracerκz scoreP
    MTLFTP0.836 (0.675–0.997)10.2<<0.0001
    MK0.813 (0.653–0.973)9.96<<0.0001
    NEOFTP0.733 (0.573–0.893)8.98<<0.0001
    MK0.760 (0.600–0.920)9.3<<0.0001
    AllFTP0.785 (0.672–0.898)13.6<<0.0001
    MK0.787 (0.674–0.900)13.6<<0.0001
    • κ = Fleiss κ-statistic.

    • Data in parentheses are 95% CIs.

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Supplemental Data

    Files in this Data Supplement:

    • Supplemental Data
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 63 (1)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 63, Issue 1
January 1, 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Direct Comparison of the Tau PET Tracers 18F-Flortaucipir and 18F-MK-6240 in Human Subjects
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Direct Comparison of the Tau PET Tracers 18F-Flortaucipir and 18F-MK-6240 in Human Subjects
Alexandra Gogola, Davneet S. Minhas, Victor L. Villemagne, Ann D. Cohen, James M. Mountz, Tharick A. Pascoal, Charles M. Laymon, N. Scott Mason, Milos D. Ikonomovic, Chester A. Mathis, Beth E. Snitz, Oscar L. Lopez, William E. Klunk, Brian J. Lopresti
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Jan 2022, 63 (1) 108-116; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.120.254961

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Direct Comparison of the Tau PET Tracers 18F-Flortaucipir and 18F-MK-6240 in Human Subjects
Alexandra Gogola, Davneet S. Minhas, Victor L. Villemagne, Ann D. Cohen, James M. Mountz, Tharick A. Pascoal, Charles M. Laymon, N. Scott Mason, Milos D. Ikonomovic, Chester A. Mathis, Beth E. Snitz, Oscar L. Lopez, William E. Klunk, Brian J. Lopresti
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Jan 2022, 63 (1) 108-116; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.120.254961
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Visual Abstract
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • DISCLOSURE
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • This Month in JNM
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • In Vivo Head-to-Head Comparison of [18F]GTP1 with [18F]MK-6240 and [18F]PI-2620 in Alzheimer Disease
  • Longitudinal Association of Mid-Life Ten Year Cardiovascular Disease Risk Score with Brain Biomarkers of Alzheimers Disease, Neurodegeneration and White Matter Hyper Intensities in Cognitively Unimpaired Older Adults: Heart SCORE Brain Study
  • Alzheimers Disease biological PET staging using plasma p217+tau
  • Traumatic brain injury and Alzheimers Disease biomarkers: A systematic review of findings from amyloid and tau positron emission tomography (PET)
  • Docking for molecules that bind in a symmetric stack with SymDOCK
  • Tau PET Visual Reads: Research and Clinical Applications and Future Directions
  • CenTauR: Towards a Universal Scale and Masks for Standardizing Tau Imaging Studies
  • The Association of Age-Related and Off-Target Retention with Longitudinal Quantification of [18F]MK6240 Tau PET in Target Regions
  • Tau PET Imaging in Neurodegenerative Disorders
  • The association of age-related and off-target retention with longitudinal quantification of [18F]MK6240 tau-PET in target regions
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • SNMMI Procedure Standard/EANM Practice Guideline for Brain [18F]FDG PET Imaging, Version 2.0
  • Imaging Efficacy of [18F]CTT1057 PET for the Detection of PSMA-Positive Tumors Using Histopathology as Standard of Truth: Results from the GuideView Phase 2/3 Prospective Multicenter Study
  • Meeting Upcoming Clinical and Diagnostic Needs in Oncologic Imaging: A Structured Reporting System for Fibroblast-Activation-Protein–Targeted Imaging—FAP-RADS Version 1.0
Show more Clinical Investigation

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • tau
  • PET
  • Alzheimer disease
  • 18F-flortaucipir
  • 18F-MK-6240
SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire