Yong-Il Kim1, Hyung-Jun Im1, Jin Chul Paeng2, Jae Sung Lee2, Jae Seon Eo2, Dong Hyun Kim3, Euishin E Kim4, Keon Wook Kang2, June-Key Chung2, Dong Soo Lee1. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744 South Korea ; Department of Molecular Medicine and Biopharmaceutical Sciences, WCU Graduate School of Convergence Science and Technology, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744 South Korea. 3. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea. 4. Department of Molecular Medicine and Biopharmaceutical Sciences, WCU Graduate School of Convergence Science and Technology, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea ; Department of Nuclear Medicine, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: (18)F-FP-CIT positron emission tomography (PET) is an effective imaging for dopamine transporters. In usual clinical practice, (18)F-FP-CIT PET is analyzed visually or quantified using manual delineation of a volume of interest (VOI) for the striatum. In this study, we suggested and validated two simple quantitative methods based on automatic VOI delineation using statistical probabilistic anatomical mapping (SPAM) and isocontour margin setting. METHODS: Seventy-five (18)F-FP-CIT PET images acquired in routine clinical practice were used for this study. A study-specific image template was made and the subject images were normalized to the template. Afterwards, uptakes in the striatal regions and cerebellum were quantified using probabilistic VOI based on SPAM. A quantitative parameter, QSPAM, was calculated to simulate binding potential. Additionally, the functional volume of each striatal region and its uptake were measured in automatically delineated VOI using isocontour margin setting. Uptake-volume product (QUVP) was calculated for each striatal region. QSPAM and QUVP were compared with visual grading and the influence of cerebral atrophy on the measurements was tested. RESULTS: Image analyses were successful in all the cases. Both the QSPAM and QUVP were significantly different according to visual grading (P < 0.001). The agreements of QUVP or QSPAM with visual grading were slight to fair for the caudate nucleus (κ = 0.421 and 0.291, respectively) and good to perfect to the putamen (κ = 0.663 and 0.607, respectively). Also, QSPAM and QUVP had a significant correlation with each other (P < 0.001). Cerebral atrophy made a significant difference in QSPAM and QUVP of the caudate nuclei regions with decreased (18)F-FP-CIT uptake. CONCLUSION: Simple quantitative measurements of QSPAM and QUVP showed acceptable agreement with visual grading. Although QSPAM in some group may be influenced by cerebral atrophy, these simple methods are expected to be effective in the quantitative analysis of (18)F-FP-CIT PET in usual clinical practice.
PURPOSE: (18)F-FP-CIT positron emission tomography (PET) is an effective imaging for dopamine transporters. In usual clinical practice, (18)F-FP-CIT PET is analyzed visually or quantified using manual delineation of a volume of interest (VOI) for the striatum. In this study, we suggested and validated two simple quantitative methods based on automatic VOI delineation using statistical probabilistic anatomical mapping (SPAM) and isocontour margin setting. METHODS: Seventy-five (18)F-FP-CIT PET images acquired in routine clinical practice were used for this study. A study-specific image template was made and the subject images were normalized to the template. Afterwards, uptakes in the striatal regions and cerebellum were quantified using probabilistic VOI based on SPAM. A quantitative parameter, QSPAM, was calculated to simulate binding potential. Additionally, the functional volume of each striatal region and its uptake were measured in automatically delineated VOI using isocontour margin setting. Uptake-volume product (QUVP) was calculated for each striatal region. QSPAM and QUVP were compared with visual grading and the influence of cerebral atrophy on the measurements was tested. RESULTS: Image analyses were successful in all the cases. Both the QSPAM and QUVP were significantly different according to visual grading (P < 0.001). The agreements of QUVP or QSPAM with visual grading were slight to fair for the caudate nucleus (κ = 0.421 and 0.291, respectively) and good to perfect to the putamen (κ = 0.663 and 0.607, respectively). Also, QSPAM and QUVP had a significant correlation with each other (P < 0.001). Cerebral atrophy made a significant difference in QSPAM and QUVP of the caudate nuclei regions with decreased (18)F-FP-CIT uptake. CONCLUSION: Simple quantitative measurements of QSPAM and QUVP showed acceptable agreement with visual grading. Although QSPAM in some group may be influenced by cerebral atrophy, these simple methods are expected to be effective in the quantitative analysis of (18)F-FP-CIT PET in usual clinical practice.
Authors: D Contrafatto; G Mostile; A Nicoletti; V Dibilio; L Raciti; S Lanzafame; A Luca; A Distefano; M Zappia Journal: Acta Neurol Scand Date: 2011-09-14 Impact factor: 3.209
Authors: Stefanie Klaffke; Andrea A Kuhn; Michail Plotkin; Holger Amthauer; Daniel Harnack; Roland Felix; Andreas Kupsch Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Sean J Colloby; John T O'Brien; John D Fenwick; Michael J Firbank; David J Burn; Ian G McKeith; E David Williams Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Minyoung Oh; Jae Seung Kim; Ji Young Kim; Kwang-Ho Shin; Seol Hoon Park; Hye Ok Kim; Dae Hyuk Moon; Seung Jun Oh; Sun Ju Chung; Chong Sik Lee Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-02-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Aurélie Kas; Pierre Payoux; Marie-Odile Habert; Zoulikha Malek; Yann Cointepas; Georges El Fakhri; Philippe Chaumet-Riffaud; Emmanuel Itti; Philippe Remy Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-08-17 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Vicky L Marshall; Cornelia B Reininger; Moritz Marquardt; Jim Patterson; Donald M Hadley; Wolfgang H Oertel; Hani T S Benamer; Paul Kemp; David Burn; Eduardo Tolosa; Jamie Kulisevsky; Luis Cunha; Durval Costa; Jan Booij; Klaus Tatsch; K Ray Chaudhuri; Gudrun Ulm; Oliver Pogarell; Helmut Höffken; Anja Gerstner; Donald G Grosset Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2009-03-15 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: William Robeson; Vijay Dhawan; Abdel Belakhlef; Yilong Ma; Von Pillai; Thomas Chaly; Claude Margouleff; David Bjelke; David Eidelberg Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 10.057