OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the degree of interobserver agreement in the visual interpretation of (123)I-FP-CIT studies and to investigate for potential associations between visual and semi-quantitative parameters. METHODS: Eighty-nine (123)I-FP-CIT studies were blindly reviewed by 3 independent observers: a consultant, a resident doctor and a radiographer. They classified every study as either "normal" or "abnormal" and assigned visual (123)I-FP-CIT uptake scores (2: normal, 1: reduced and 0: no uptake) in basal ganglia nuclei (right and left putamina and caudate nuclei) on every scan. Striatal (123)I-FP-CIT binding ratios were calculated using crescent-ROI software. The interobserver agreement for the interpretation of studies and for visual score assignment was evaluated by means of κ statistics. We investigated for associations of binding ratios with visual scores and clinical parameters; patients' clinical diagnoses served as the reference standard. RESULTS: There was excellent interobserver agreement (κ 0.89-0.93) in classifying studies as "normal" or "abnormal" and fine agreement in assignment of visual scores (κ 0.71-0.80 for putamina and 0.50-0.79 for caudate nuclei). Nuclei with scores of 1 and 0 showed significantly reduced binding ratios (about 30 and 50%, respectively) compared with the nuclei scored as 2. ROC analysis indicated the optimal cutoff point of striatal binding ratio at 3.8 (sensitivity 98.5%, specificity 95%) for the detection of parkinsonian syndromes. Striatal binding ratios were negatively associated with age in normal subjects and disease duration in Parkinson's disease patients. CONCLUSION: Visual interpretation of (123)I-FP-CIT studies showed very good interobserver agreement. We found significant associations among visual, semi-quantitative and clinical parameters.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the degree of interobserver agreement in the visual interpretation of (123)I-FP-CIT studies and to investigate for potential associations between visual and semi-quantitative parameters. METHODS: Eighty-nine (123)I-FP-CIT studies were blindly reviewed by 3 independent observers: a consultant, a resident doctor and a radiographer. They classified every study as either "normal" or "abnormal" and assigned visual (123)I-FP-CIT uptake scores (2: normal, 1: reduced and 0: no uptake) in basal ganglia nuclei (right and left putamina and caudate nuclei) on every scan. Striatal (123)I-FP-CIT binding ratios were calculated using crescent-ROI software. The interobserver agreement for the interpretation of studies and for visual score assignment was evaluated by means of κ statistics. We investigated for associations of binding ratios with visual scores and clinical parameters; patients' clinical diagnoses served as the reference standard. RESULTS: There was excellent interobserver agreement (κ 0.89-0.93) in classifying studies as "normal" or "abnormal" and fine agreement in assignment of visual scores (κ 0.71-0.80 for putamina and 0.50-0.79 for caudate nuclei). Nuclei with scores of 1 and 0 showed significantly reduced binding ratios (about 30 and 50%, respectively) compared with the nuclei scored as 2. ROC analysis indicated the optimal cutoff point of striatal binding ratio at 3.8 (sensitivity 98.5%, specificity 95%) for the detection of parkinsonian syndromes. Striatal binding ratios were negatively associated with age in normal subjects and disease duration in Parkinson's diseasepatients. CONCLUSION: Visual interpretation of (123)I-FP-CIT studies showed very good interobserver agreement. We found significant associations among visual, semi-quantitative and clinical parameters.
Authors: Ralph Buchert; Carsten Buhmann; Ivayla Apostolova; Philipp T Meyer; Jürgen Gallinat Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Nicolas Nicastro; Valentina Garibotto; Antoine Poncet; Simon Badoud; Pierre R Burkhard Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: John T O'Brien; Wolfgang H Oertel; Ian G McKeith; Donald G Grosset; Zuzana Walker; Klaus Tatsch; Eduardo Tolosa; Paul F Sherwin; Igor D Grachev Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2014-07-03 Impact factor: 2.692