% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Eimeren:910743,
author = {Eimeren, Thilo and Antonini, Angelo and Berg, Daniela and
Bohnen, Nico and Ceravolo, Roberto and Drzezga, Alexander
and Höglinger, Günter U. and Higuchi, Makoto and Lehericy,
Stephane and Lewis, Simon and Monchi, Oury and Nestor, Peter
and Ondrus, Matej and Pavese, Nicola and Peralta, María
Cecilia and Piccini, Paola and Pineda-Pardo, José Ángel
and Rektorová, Irena and Rodríguez-Oroz, María and
Rominger, Axel and Seppi, Klaus and Stoessl, A. Jon and
Tessitore, Alessandro and Thobois, Stephane and Kaasinen,
Valtteri and Wenning, Gregor and Siebner, Hartwig R. and
Strafella, Antonio P. and Rowe, James B.},
title = {{N}euroimaging biomarkers for clinical trials in atypical
parkinsonian disorders: {P}roposal for a {N}euroimaging
{B}iomarker {U}tility {S}ystem},
journal = {Alzheimer's $\&$ dementia / Diagnosis, assessment $\&$
disease monitoring},
volume = {11},
number = {1},
issn = {2352-8729},
address = {Hoboken, NJ},
publisher = {Wiley},
reportid = {FZJ-2022-04113},
pages = {301 - 309},
year = {2019},
abstract = {IntroductionTherapeutic strategies targeting protein
aggregations are ready for clinical trials in atypical
parkinsonian disorders. Therefore, there is an urgent need
for neuroimaging biomarkers to help with the early detection
of neurodegenerative processes, the early differentiation of
the underlying pathology, and the objective assessment of
disease progression. However, there currently is not yet a
consensus in the field on how to describe utility of
biomarkers for clinical trials in atypical parkinsonian
disorders.MethodsTo promote standardized use of neuroimaging
biomarkers for clinical trials, we aimed to develop a
conceptual framework to characterize in more detail the kind
of neuroimaging biomarkers needed in atypical parkinsonian
disorders, identify the current challenges in ascribing
utility of these biomarkers, and propose criteria for a
system that may guide future studies.ResultsAs a consensus
outcome, we describe the main challenges in ascribing
utility of neuroimaging biomarkers in atypical parkinsonian
disorders, and we propose a conceptual framework that
includes a graded system for the description of utility of a
specific neuroimaging measure. We included separate
categories for the ability to accurately identify an
intention-to-treat patient population early in the disease
(Early), to accurately detect a specific underlying
pathology (Specific), and the ability to monitor disease
progression (Progression).DiscussionWe suggest that the
advancement of standardized neuroimaging in the field of
atypical parkinsonian disorders will be furthered by a
well-defined reference frame for the utility of biomarkers.
The proposed utility system allows a detailed and graded
description of the respective strengths of neuroimaging
biomarkers in the currently most relevant areas of
application in clinical trials.Keywords: Biomarker, Trials,
PSP, MSA, CBD, CBS, Neurodegeneration, Biomarker,
Multicentric, Multisite, Neuroimaging, Harmonization, PET,
MRI},
cin = {INM-2},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-2-20090406},
pnm = {899 - ohne Topic (POF4-899)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-899},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {30984816},
UT = {WOS:000723892800035},
doi = {10.1016/j.dadm.2019.01.011},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/910743},
}