Marissa D Zwan1, Rik Ossenkoppele2, Nelleke Tolboom3, Alexandra J M Beunders3, Reina W Kloet3, Sofie M Adriaanse2, Ronald Boellaard3, Albert D Windhorst3, Pieter Raijmakers3, Human Adams3, Adriaan A Lammertsma3, Philip Scheltens4, Wiesje M van der Flier5, Bart N M van Berckel3. 1. Alzheimer Center and Department of Neurology, Neuroscience Campus Amsterdam, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Neuroscience Campus Amsterdam, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; and m.zwan@vumc.nl. 2. Alzheimer Center and Department of Neurology, Neuroscience Campus Amsterdam, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Neuroscience Campus Amsterdam, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; and. 3. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Neuroscience Campus Amsterdam, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; and. 4. Alzheimer Center and Department of Neurology, Neuroscience Campus Amsterdam, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Alzheimer Center and Department of Neurology, Neuroscience Campus Amsterdam, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Neuroscience Campus Amsterdam, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: This study compared several parametric imaging methods to determine the optimal approach for visual assessment of parametric Pittsburgh compound-B ((11)C-PIB) PET images to detect cortical amyloid deposition in different memory clinic patient groups. METHODS: Dynamic (11)C-PIB scanning of 120 memory clinic patients was performed. Parametric nondisplaceable binding potential (BPND) images were compared with standardized uptake value (SUV) and SUV ratio images. Images were visually assessed by 3 independent readers, and both interreader and intermethod agreement was determined. RESULTS: Both 90-min (Fleiss κ = 0.88) and 60-min (Fleiss κ = 0.89) BPND images showed excellent interreader agreement, whereas agreement was good to moderate for SUV ratio images (Fleiss κ = 0.68) and SUV images (Fleiss κ = 0.59). Intermethod agreement varied substantially between readers, although BPND images consistently showed the best performance. CONCLUSION: The use of BPND images provided the highest interreader and intermethod agreement and is therefore the method of choice for optimal visual interpretation of (11)C-PIB PET scans.
UNLABELLED: This study compared several parametric imaging methods to determine the optimal approach for visual assessment of parametric Pittsburgh compound-B ((11)C-PIB) PET images to detect cortical amyloid deposition in different memory clinic patient groups. METHODS: Dynamic (11)C-PIB scanning of 120 memory clinic patients was performed. Parametric nondisplaceable binding potential (BPND) images were compared with standardized uptake value (SUV) and SUV ratio images. Images were visually assessed by 3 independent readers, and both interreader and intermethod agreement was determined. RESULTS: Both 90-min (Fleiss κ = 0.88) and 60-min (Fleiss κ = 0.89) BPND images showed excellent interreader agreement, whereas agreement was good to moderate for SUV ratio images (Fleiss κ = 0.68) and SUV images (Fleiss κ = 0.59). Intermethod agreement varied substantially between readers, although BPND images consistently showed the best performance. CONCLUSION: The use of BPND images provided the highest interreader and intermethod agreement and is therefore the method of choice for optimal visual interpretation of (11)C-PIB PET scans.
Authors: Aaron P Schultz; Reina W Kloet; Hamid R Sohrabi; Louise van der Weerd; Sanneke van Rooden; Marieke J H Wermer; Laure Grand Moursel; Maqsood Yaqub; Bart N M van Berckel; Pratishtha Chatterjee; Samantha L Gardener; Kevin Taddei; Anne M Fagan; Tammie L Benzinger; John C Morris; Reisa Sperling; Keith Johnson; Randall J Bateman; M Edip Gurol; Mark A van Buchem; Ralph Martins; Jasmeer P Chhatwal; Steven M Greenberg Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2019-08-12 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Christopher C Rowe; Vincent Doré; Gareth Jones; David Baxendale; Rachel S Mulligan; Santiago Bullich; Andrew W Stephens; Susan De Santi; Colin L Masters; Ludger Dinkelborg; Victor L Villemagne Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-06-22 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Nienke M E Scheltens; Kars van der Weijden; Sofie M Adriaanse; Danielle van Assema; Priscilla P Oomen; Welmoed A Krudop; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Frederik Barkhof; Teddy Koene; Charlotte E Teunissen; Philip Scheltens; Wiesje M van der Flier; Yolande A L Pijnenburg; Maqsood Yaqub; Rik Ossenkoppele; Bart N M van Berckel Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2018-05-22 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Lyduine E Collij; Elles Konijnenberg; Juhan Reimand; Mara Ten Kate; Anouk den Braber; Isadora Lopes Alves; Marissa Zwan; Maqsood Yaqub; Daniëlle M E van Assema; Alle Meije Wink; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Philip Scheltens; Pieter Jelle Visser; Frederik Barkhof; Bart N M van Berckel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-10-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Arno de Wilde; Juhan Reimand; Charlotte E Teunissen; Marissa Zwan; Albert D Windhorst; Ronald Boellaard; Wiesje M van der Flier; Philip Scheltens; Bart N M van Berckel; Femke Bouwman; Rik Ossenkoppele Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2019-09-12 Impact factor: 6.982
Authors: Sander Cj Verfaillie; Sandeep Sv Golla; Tessa Timmers; Hayel Tuncel; Chris Wj van der Weijden; Patrick Schober; Robert C Schuit; Wiesje M van der Flier; Albert D Windhorst; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Bart Nm van Berckel; Ronald Boellaard Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2020-04-22 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: E E Wolters; M van de Beek; R Ossenkoppele; S S V Golla; S C J Verfaillie; E M Coomans; T Timmers; D Visser; H Tuncel; F Barkhof; R Boellaard; A D Windhorst; W M van der Flier; Ph Scheltens; A W Lemstra; B N M van Berckel Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2020-11-19 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Sandeep Sv Golla; Sander Cj Verfaillie; Ronald Boellaard; Sofie M Adriaanse; Marissa D Zwan; Robert C Schuit; Tessa Timmers; Colin Groot; Patrick Schober; Philip Scheltens; Wiesje M van der Flier; Albert D Windhorst; Bart Nm van Berckel; Adriaan A Lammertsma Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2018-06-13 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Lyduine E Collij; Gemma Salvadó; Mahnaz Shekari; Isadora Lopes Alves; Juhan Reimand; Alle Meije Wink; Marissa Zwan; Aida Niñerola-Baizán; Andrés Perissinotti; Philip Scheltens; Milos D Ikonomovic; Adrian P L Smith; Gill Farrar; José Luis Molinuevo; Frederik Barkhof; Christopher J Buckley; Bart N M van Berckel; Juan Domingo Gispert Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-02-22 Impact factor: 9.236