| Literature DB >> 25531005 |
Chien-Chin Hsu1, Yen-Hsiang Chang1, Wei-Che Lin2, Shu-Wen Tang1, Pei-Wen Wang1, Yung-Cheng Huang1, Nan-Tsing Chiu3.
Abstract
A hybrid SPECT/CT system provides accurate coregistration of functional and morphological images. CT-guided region of interest (ROI) for semiquantifying striatal dopamine transporter (DAT) availability may be a feasible method. We therefore assessed the intra- and interobserver reproducibility of manual SPECT and CT-guided ROI methods and compared their semiquantitative data with data from MRI-guided ROIs. We enrolled twenty-eight patients who underwent Tc-99m TRODAT-1 brain SPECT/CT and brain MRI. ROIs of the striatal, caudate, putamen, and occipital cortex were manually delineated on the SPECT, CT, and MRI. ROIs from CT and MRI were transferred to the coregistered SPECT for semiquantification. The striatal, caudate, and putamen nondisplaceable binding potential (BPND) were calculated. Using CT-guided ROIs had higher intra- and interobserver concordance correlation coefficients, closer Bland-Altman biases to zero, and narrower limits of agreement than using manual SPECT ROIs. The correlation coefficients of striatal, caudate, and putamen BPND were good between manual SPECT and MRI-guided ROI methods and even better between CT-guided and MRI-guided ROI methods. Conclusively, CT-guided ROI delineation for semiquantifying striatal DAT availability in a hybrid SPECT/CT system is highly reproducible, and the semiquantitative data correlate well with data from MRI-guided ROIs.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25531005 PMCID: PMC4233671 DOI: 10.1155/2014/879497
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Figure 1Regions of interest (ROIs) were manually drawn directly on the summed SPECT image (a). In CT-guided method, ROIs were manually delineated directly on one CT slice with the best recognizable striatum. ROIs were then transferred to the hardware-based coregistered summed SPECT image (b, c). In MRI-guided method, ROIs were manually delineated directly on one MRI slice with the best recognizable striatum. ROIs were then transferred to the software-based coregistered summed SPECT image (d, e).
Striatal, caudate, and putamen BPND from manual SPECT, CT-guided, and MRI-guided ROIs methods; the intra- and interobserver concordance correlation coefficients, Bland-Altman biases, and limits of agreement of manual SPECT and CT-guided ROI methods.
| Striatal BPND | Caudate BPND | Putamen BPND | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manual SPECT ROI | |||
| Intraobserver (observer A) | |||
| First analysis | 0.46 ± 0.24 | 0.55 ± 0.26 | 0.42 ± 0.24 |
| Second analysis | 0.48 ± 0.26 | 0.58 ± 0.29 | 0.38 ± 0.26 |
| CCC | 0.96 | 0.96 | 0.93 |
| 95% CI of CCC | 0.93–0.98 | 0.94–0.98 | 0.89–0.96 |
| Bias (mean difference) | −0.03 | −0.03 | 0.03 |
| Limits of agreement | −0.16, 0.10 | −0.16, 0.11 | −0.13, 0.20 |
| Interobserver* | |||
| Observer B analysis | 0.39 ± 0.23 | 0.48 ± 0.22 | 0.36 ± 0.24 |
| CCC | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.88 |
| 95% CI of CCC | 0.82–0.93 | 0.83–0.93 | 0.80–0.93 |
| Bias (mean difference) | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.05 |
| Limits of agreement | −0.11, 0.25 | −0.11, 0.25 | −0.16, 0.27 |
| CT-guided ROI | |||
| Intraobserver (observer A) | |||
| First analysis | 0.49 ± 0.25 | 0.54 ± 0.25 | 0.46 ± 0.27 |
| Second analysis | 0.48 ± 0.25 | 0.52 ± 0.26 | 0.46 ± 0.27 |
| CCC | 0.98 | 0.97 | 0.97 |
| 95% CI of CCC | 0.97–0.99 | 0.94–0.98 | 0.95–0.98 |
| Bias (mean difference) | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 |
| Limits of agreement | −0.08, 0.11 | −0.11, 0.14 | −0.12, 0.13 |
| Interobserver* | |||
| Observer B analysis | 0.48 ± 0.26 | 0.56 ± 0.27 | 0.45 ± 0.28 |
| CCC | 0.97 | 0.95 | 0.96 |
| 95% CI of CCC | 0.95–0.98 | 0.92–0.97 | 0.94–0.98 |
| Bias (mean difference) | 0.01 | −0.02 | 0.02 |
| Limits of agreement | −0.12, 0.13 | −0.18, 0.13 | −0.13, 0.16 |
| MRI-guided ROI | 0.46 ± 0.25 | 0.53 ± 0.26 | 0.43 ± 0.25 |
BPND: nondisplaceable binding potential; SPECT: single photon emission computed tomography; ROI: region of interest; CCC: concordance correlation coefficient; CI: confidence interval; CT: computed tomography
*Interobserver analysis was compared with observer A's first analysis.
Figure 2Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis for comparing the accuracy of caudate BPND (a) and putamen BPND (b) from manual SPECT and CT-guided ROI methods.
Figure 3Scatter plots and regression lines (dashed line) of striatal, caudate, and putamen nondisplaceable binding potential (BPND) between manual SPECT and MRI-guided regions of interest (ROIs) (a–c) and between CT-guided and MRI-guided ROIs (d–f).