PURPOSE: This study examined the feasibility of using quantitation to augment interpretation of florbetapir PET amyloid imaging. METHODS: A total of 80 physician readers were trained on quantitation of florbetapir PET images and the principles for using quantitation to augment a visual read. On day 1, the readers completed a visual read of 96 scans (46 autopsy-verified and 50 from patients seeking a diagnosis). On day 2, 69 of the readers reinterpreted the 96 scans augmenting their interpretation with quantitation (VisQ method) using one of three commercial software packages. A subset of 11 readers reinterpreted all scans on day 2 based on a visual read only (VisVis control). For the autopsy-verified scans, the neuropathologist's modified CERAD plaque score was used as the truth standard for interpretation accuracy. Because an autopsy truth standard was not available for scans from patients seeking a diagnosis, the majority VisQ interpretation of the three readers with the best accuracy in interpreting autopsy-verified scans was used as the reference standard. RESULTS: Day 1 visual read accuracy was high for both the autopsy-verified scans (90%) and the scans from patients seeking a diagnosis (87.3%). Accuracy improved from the visual read to the VisQ read (from 90.1% to 93.1%, p < 0.0001). Importantly, access to quantitative information did not decrease interpretation accuracy of the above-average readers (>90% on day 1). Accuracy in interpreting the autopsy-verified scans also increased from the first to the second visual read (VisVis group). However, agreement with the reference standard (best readers) for scans from patients seeking a diagnosis did not improve with a second visual read, and in this cohort the VisQ group was significantly improved relative to the VisVis group (change 5.4% vs. -1.1%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: These results indicate that augmentation of visual interpretation of florbetapir PET amyloid images with quantitative information obtained using commercially available software packages did not reduce the accuracy of readers who were already performing with above average accuracy on the visual read and may improve the accuracy and confidence of some readers in clinically relevant cases.
PURPOSE: This study examined the feasibility of using quantitation to augment interpretation of florbetapir PET amyloid imaging. METHODS: A total of 80 physician readers were trained on quantitation of florbetapir PET images and the principles for using quantitation to augment a visual read. On day 1, the readers completed a visual read of 96 scans (46 autopsy-verified and 50 from patients seeking a diagnosis). On day 2, 69 of the readers reinterpreted the 96 scans augmenting their interpretation with quantitation (VisQ method) using one of three commercial software packages. A subset of 11 readers reinterpreted all scans on day 2 based on a visual read only (VisVis control). For the autopsy-verified scans, the neuropathologist's modified CERAD plaque score was used as the truth standard for interpretation accuracy. Because an autopsy truth standard was not available for scans from patients seeking a diagnosis, the majority VisQ interpretation of the three readers with the best accuracy in interpreting autopsy-verified scans was used as the reference standard. RESULTS: Day 1 visual read accuracy was high for both the autopsy-verified scans (90%) and the scans from patients seeking a diagnosis (87.3%). Accuracy improved from the visual read to the VisQ read (from 90.1% to 93.1%, p < 0.0001). Importantly, access to quantitative information did not decrease interpretation accuracy of the above-average readers (>90% on day 1). Accuracy in interpreting the autopsy-verified scans also increased from the first to the second visual read (VisVis group). However, agreement with the reference standard (best readers) for scans from patients seeking a diagnosis did not improve with a second visual read, and in this cohort the VisQ group was significantly improved relative to the VisVis group (change 5.4% vs. -1.1%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: These results indicate that augmentation of visual interpretation of florbetapir PET amyloid images with quantitative information obtained using commercially available software packages did not reduce the accuracy of readers who were already performing with above average accuracy on the visual read and may improve the accuracy and confidence of some readers in clinically relevant cases.
Authors: N Avril; S Bense; S I Ziegler; J Dose; W Weber; C Laubenbacher; W Römer; F Jänicke; M Schwaiger Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1997-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Osama Sabri; Marwan N Sabbagh; John Seibyl; Henryk Barthel; Hiroyasu Akatsu; Yasuomi Ouchi; Kohei Senda; Shigeo Murayama; Kenji Ishii; Masaki Takao; Thomas G Beach; Christopher C Rowe; James B Leverenz; Bernardino Ghetti; James W Ironside; Ana M Catafau; Andrew W Stephens; Andre Mueller; Norman Koglin; Anja Hoffmann; Katrin Roth; Cornelia Reininger; Walter J Schulz-Schaeffer Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2015-03-28 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Abhinay D Joshi; Michael J Pontecorvo; Chrisopher M Clark; Alan P Carpenter; Danna L Jennings; Carl H Sadowsky; Lee P Adler; Karel D Kovnat; John P Seibyl; Anupa Arora; Krishnendu Saha; Jason D Burns; Mark J Lowrey; Mark A Mintun; Daniel M Skovronsky Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-02-13 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Christopher Kobylecki; Tobias Langheinrich; Rainer Hinz; Emma R L C Vardy; Gavin Brown; María-Elena Martino; Cathleen Haense; Anna M Richardson; Alexander Gerhard; Jose M Anton-Rodriguez; Julie S Snowden; David Neary; Michael J Pontecorvo; Karl Herholz Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-02-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Victor L Villemagne; Samantha Burnham; Pierrick Bourgeat; Belinda Brown; Kathryn A Ellis; Olivier Salvado; Cassandra Szoeke; S Lance Macaulay; Ralph Martins; Paul Maruff; David Ames; Christopher C Rowe; Colin L Masters Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2013-03-08 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Natalie Nelissen; Koen Van Laere; Lennart Thurfjell; Rikard Owenius; Mathieu Vandenbulcke; Michel Koole; Guy Bormans; David J Brooks; Rik Vandenberghe Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-07-17 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Norman L Foster; Judith L Heidebrink; Christopher M Clark; William J Jagust; Steven E Arnold; Nancy R Barbas; Charles S DeCarli; R Scott Turner; Robert A Koeppe; Roger Higdon; Satoshi Minoshima Journal: Brain Date: 2007-08-18 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Antoine Leuzy; Kerstin Heurling; Susan De Santi; Santiago Bullich; Oskar Hansson; Johan Lilja Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-08-25
Authors: Reisa A Sperling; Michael C Donohue; Rema Raman; Chung-Kai Sun; Roy Yaari; Karen Holdridge; Eric Siemers; Keith A Johnson; Paul S Aisen Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Michael J Pontecorvo; Michael D Devous; Ian Kennedy; Michael Navitsky; Ming Lu; Nicholas Galante; Stephen Salloway; P Murali Doraiswamy; Sudeepti Southekal; Anupa K Arora; Anne McGeehan; Nathaniel C Lim; Hui Xiong; Stephen P Truocchio; Abhinay D Joshi; Sergey Shcherbinin; Brian Teske; Adam S Fleisher; Mark A Mintun Journal: Brain Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Bernard J Hanseeuw; Vincent Malotaux; Laurence Dricot; Lisa Quenon; Yves Sznajer; Jiri Cerman; John L Woodard; Christopher Buckley; Gill Farrar; Adrian Ivanoiu; Renaud Lhommel Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-06-29 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Antoine Leuzy; Johan Lilja; Christopher J Buckley; Rik Ossenkoppele; Sebastian Palmqvist; Mark Battle; Gill Farrar; Dietmar R Thal; Shorena Janelidze; Erik Stomrud; Olof Strandberg; Ruben Smith; Oskar Hansson Journal: Neurology Date: 2020-10-19 Impact factor: 9.910