PURPOSE: A technique is described for accurate quantification of the specific binding ratio (SBR) in [(123)I]FP-CIT SPECT brain images. METHODS: Using a region of interest (ROI) approach, the SBR is derived from a measure of total striatal counts that takes into account the partial volume effect. Operator intervention is limited to the placement of the striatal ROIs, a task facilitated by the use of geometrical template regions. The definition of the image for the analysis is automated and includes transaxial slices within a "slab" approximately 44 mm thick centred on the highest striatal signal. The reference region is automatically defined from the non-specific uptake in the whole brain enclosed in the slab, with exclusion of the striatal region. A retrospective study consisting of 25 normal and 30 abnormal scans-classified by the clinical diagnosis reached with the scan support-was carried out to assess intra- and inter-operator variability of the technique and its clinical usefulness. Three operators repeated the quantification twice and the variability was measured by the coefficient of variation (COV). RESULTS: The COVs for intra- and inter-operator variability were 3% and 4% respectively. A cutoff approximately 4.5 was identified that separated normal and abnormal groups with a sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic concordance of 97%, 92% and 95% respectively. CONCLUSION: The proposed technique provides a reproducible and sensitive index. It is hoped that its independence from the partial volume effect will improve consistency in quantitative measurements between centres with different imaging devices and analysis software.
PURPOSE: A technique is described for accurate quantification of the specific binding ratio (SBR) in [(123)I]FP-CIT SPECT brain images. METHODS: Using a region of interest (ROI) approach, the SBR is derived from a measure of total striatal counts that takes into account the partial volume effect. Operator intervention is limited to the placement of the striatal ROIs, a task facilitated by the use of geometrical template regions. The definition of the image for the analysis is automated and includes transaxial slices within a "slab" approximately 44 mm thick centred on the highest striatal signal. The reference region is automatically defined from the non-specific uptake in the whole brain enclosed in the slab, with exclusion of the striatal region. A retrospective study consisting of 25 normal and 30 abnormal scans-classified by the clinical diagnosis reached with the scan support-was carried out to assess intra- and inter-operator variability of the technique and its clinical usefulness. Three operators repeated the quantification twice and the variability was measured by the coefficient of variation (COV). RESULTS: The COVs for intra- and inter-operator variability were 3% and 4% respectively. A cutoff approximately 4.5 was identified that separated normal and abnormal groups with a sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic concordance of 97%, 92% and 95% respectively. CONCLUSION: The proposed technique provides a reproducible and sensitive index. It is hoped that its independence from the partial volume effect will improve consistency in quantitative measurements between centres with different imaging devices and analysis software.
Authors: T S Benamer; J Patterson; D G Grosset; J Booij; K de Bruin; E van Royen; J D Speelman; M H Horstink; H J Sips; R A Dierckx; J Versijpt; D Decoo; C Van Der Linden; D M Hadley; M Doder; A J Lees; D C Costa; S Gacinovic; W H Oertel; O Pogarell; H Hoeffken; K Joseph; K Tatsch; J Schwarz; V Ries Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Albert Cot; Carles Falcón; Cristina Crespo; Josep Sempau; Deborah Pareto; Santiago Bullich; Francisco Lomeña; Francisco Calviño; Javier Pavía; Domènec Ros Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: J Booij; G Tissingh; G J Boer; J D Speelman; J C Stoof; A G Janssen; E C Wolters; E A van Royen Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 1997-02 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: J Booij; J B Habraken; P Bergmans; G Tissingh; A Winogrodzka; E C Wolters; A G Janssen; J C Stoof; E A van Royen Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: J Hashimoto; T Sasaki; K Ogawa; A Kubo; N Motomura; T Ichihara; T Amano; Y Fukuuchi Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 1999-02 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: Z Walker; D C Costa; R W H Walker; K Shaw; S Gacinovic; T Stevens; G Livingston; P Ince; I G McKeith; C L E Katona Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: J P Seibyl; K Marek; K Sheff; S Zoghbi; R M Baldwin; D S Charney; C H van Dyck; R B Innis Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1998-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Livia Tossici-Bolt; John C Dickson; Terez Sera; Robin de Nijs; Maria Claudia Bagnara; Catherine Jonsson; Egon Scheepers; Felicia Zito; Anita Seese; Pierre Malick Koulibaly; Ozlem L Kapucu; Michel Koole; Maria Raith; Jean George; Markus Nowak Lonsdale; Wolfgang Münzing; Klaus Tatsch; Andrea Varrone Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-04-06 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Francisco P M Oliveira; Diogo Borges Faria; Durval C Costa; Miguel Castelo-Branco; João Manuel R S Tavares Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-12-23 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Sule Tinaz; Christopher Chow; Phillip H Kuo; Elizabeth A Krupinski; Hal Blumenfeld; Elan D Louis; George Zubal Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 7.794