ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2026
Evaluating early vs. late static SUVR windows of [¹⁸F]MK-6240 tau PET in Alzheimer disease: a head-to-head comparison study.
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purpose[¹⁸F]MK-6240 is a widely used second-generation tau PET tracer in Alzheimer disease (AD) and is under FDA review, making it important to refine practical static imaging windows for clinical use. Prior dynamic studies have supported late static windows (~ 90-110 min) because they improve agreement between standard uptake value ratios (SUVR) and kinetic models in high-binding regions, but extracerebral skull and meningeal uptake becomes more prominent at later times and may confound visual interpretation and SUVR quantification. In this study, we aim to determine whether an earlier static window (40-60 min) provides comparable discrimination of tau burden while reducing extracerebral spill-in and SUVR instability.
methodsIn this retrospective within-subject study, 67 participants across the AD spectrum (normal controls (cognitively unimpaired) [NL], mild cognitive impairment [MCI], and AD) underwent [¹⁸F]MK-6240 PET with early (40-60 min) and late (90-120 min) frames. SUVRs were computed in the cerebral cortex (CTX) and Braak ROIs using cerebellar cortex as reference. Early-late agreement was assessed using correlation, regression, and Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) tests. Diagnostic and tau-status classification performance was evaluated with ROC analyses. Skull/meningeal uptake was graded visually and quantified, and PET-MRI misregistration simulations assessed SUVR robustness. Time-resolved analyses (30-120 min) evaluated temporal changes in stability and discrimination.
resultsEarly and late SUVRs were highly correlated (r ≥ 0.97; p < 0.01) and showed similar cohort-level distributions (CTX KS D = 0.060; p > 0.99). Discrimination was comparable for diagnosis and tau status (e.g., CTX AUC 0.88 vs. 0.85 for NL vs. MCI/AD). Late frames showed greater skull/meningeal uptake with increased spill-in and reference-region sensitivity; in tau-negative participants, skull SUVR exceeded entorhinal SUVR after ~ 60 min. Misregistration simulations showed greater variability for late versus early entorhinal SUVR (σ = 0.071 vs. 0.017). Time-resolved analyses showed that in this cohort, later acquisition did not materially improve diagnostic discrimination and was associated with more extracerebral contamination and instability.
conclusionThe 40-60-minute window provides discrimination comparable to 90-120 min while reducing extracerebral contamination and improving robustness, supporting shorter static [¹⁸F]MK-6240 protocols for clinical and research applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42287388What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.