Coimbra Alexandre1, Farshid Faraji1, Alexander de Crespigny1, Lee Honigberg1, Robert Paul1, and David Clayton1
1Research and Early Development, Genentech, South San Francisco, CA, United States
Synopsis
RS-fMRI was
implemented in two multicenter clinical trials of a novel therapeutic for AD. Although data of good quality were acquired,
none of three functional connectivity metrics (FCMs) showed significant
progression associated with disease in placebo-treated patients: changes in
connectivity in this mild-to-moderate AD population were less than the
measurement precision. Significant cognitive decline and brain atrophy were
observed. Test-retest precision was similar to other single-center studies. Operational
and acquisition improvements could increase data quality (though difficult in multicenter
trials), but more sensitive analysis will be needed for RS-fMRI to be a useful
tool for the development of AD therapeutics.Background
Single-center observational (1,2) and therapeutic (3) studies
have used resting-state fMRI (RS-fMRI) to suggest that functional connectivity
is altered in patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD). To test robustness in a
multi-center setting, RS-fMRI was included in two Phase II trials of a novel AD
drug. We examined: (1) data quality and adherence to acquisition protocol, (2)
test-retest variability and minimal detectable difference of three commonly
used functional connectivity metrics (FCMs), and (3) sensitivity of FCMs to
detect disease progression in the placebo group.
Methods
A total of
572 scans were acquired from 111 patients with mild-to-moderate AD (MMSE 18-26)
across 19 sites in North America and Europe participating in two randomized
clinical trials (NCT01343966, NCT00997919). Scanners with different field
strengths (7 1.5T and 12 3.0T) and manufacturers (12 Siemens, 5 GE, 2 Philips)
were used. Patients were scanned prior to initiating therapy and then at weeks
7, 15, 23, 35, 47, 59 and 73. Consecutive pairs of scans acquired at 8-week
intervals were treated as test–retest data and pooled for analysis of FCM
variability.
The
scanning protocol consisted of a 2D single-shot GRE-EPI and a 3D
high-resolution T1. Sites were allowed to use locally established RS-fMRI scan
protocols with the exception of the following requirements: 3000-ms TR, 140
time points, 64x64 matrix, 224x224-mm FOV, 3.5-mm slices, ~160-mm SI coverage,
50-ms (1.5T) or 30-ms (3.0T) TE, 90˚ (1.5T) or 80˚ (3.0T) flip angle, local fat
saturation method, and high-order shimming (if available). Subjects were asked
to rest, remaining awake with eyes closed.
EPI data
were brain-extracted, motion-corrected, spatially and temporally filtered and
signal-intensity normalized, registered to brain-extracted T1 scans, and
subsequently to MNI152 standard space using non-linear registration algorithms.
Mean CSF, white matter, global brain signal, and 6 motion-correction parameters
were regressed out of the EPI data by general linear model fitting. Coefficient
of variation (CoV) in gray matter (GM) was defined as the voxelwise average of
the relative standard deviations of the temporal signals. Head motion was
assessed with FSL/MCFLIRT. Three FCMs were computed: 1) goodness-of-fit (GOF)
for the default mode network, following FSL/MELODIC independent component
analysis with automatic dimensionality estimation; 2) average GM z-score of GLM
regression using the mean posterior cingulate cortex (PCC) as the seed region
(SEED); and 3) correlation coefficients (CORR) between mean PCC and precuneus
signals. Intra-class correlation (ICC) for test–retest pairs were calculated.
Sample size curves were derived to infer minimal detectable FCM changes.
Groupwise annualized rates of change (ARC) were computed.
Results
Deviations
from prescribed imaging protocol were observed at 10 sites. Most were minor
(e.g. deviations in TE/TR) and occurred consistently per site. Significant
variation in raw GM SNR was observed across sites, but was highly consistent
between test–retest pairs of scans from any specific site. GM CoV showed less
inter-site variation than SNR. Median CoV was 1.0, decreasing to 0.75 after
regressing out nuisance variables, decreasing to 0.25 after temporal/spatial
filtering. The ICC=0.55 calculated for test–retest pairs was moderate. Sample
size calculations for detecting specific percent changes with 80% power at 0.05
significance level for GOF and CORR show that 40–80 patients are needed to
detect 20–30% change. For SEED, 20–40 patients are sufficient to detect 7–10%
change, since standard deviation of SEED test–retest difference is small
relative to the mean. The ARCs in the pooled placebo cohorts were:
GOF=0.03±0.56/year, CORR=0.05±0.27/year, SEED=-0.14±0.64/year. No ARC was significantly
different from zero for the FCMs, however significant ARC for ADAS-Cog12 score
(-7.2±8.7 points/year, p<0.001) and whole brain volume (-2.0±1.0%/year,
p<0.001) was observed for this cohort.
Conclusion
In two
global Phase II multicenter clinical trials, RS-fMRI data-acquisition protocol
was established, data of good quality were acquired and variability of FCMs was
assessed. Of three FCMs tested, none showed significant progression associated
with disease in placebo-treated patients, indicating that actual changes in
functional connectivity in this narrowly defined AD population were less than
the measurement precision of the investigated metrics. Meanwhile, significant
cognitive decline and atrophy were observed. Test–retest precision of FCMs after
pre-processing steps was similar to reports from other single-center
test–retest studies of RS-fMRI (1,2). Aside from implementing operational and
acquisition improvements to potentially increase SNR across sites, which may be
difficult to achieve under the constraints of multicenter trial, a
significantly more sensitive analysis approach will be needed for RS-fMRI to
prove useful as a tool for the development of novel drugs in AD.
Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
1. Greicius M.D., et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2004;
101:4637-42.
2. Sheline Y.I., et al. Biol Psychiatry 2010; 67:584-7
3. Li W., et al.
NeuroImage 2012, 60:1083-91.
4. Coimbra A., et al. ISMRM 2010.