| Literature DB >> 29855627 |
Kenneth J Nichols1,2, Brandon Chen1, Maria B Tomas1,2, Christopher J Palestro1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dopamine transporter (DaT) 123I-FP-CIT scans most commonly are interpreted visually. Alternatively, absolute quantitation of radiopharmaceutical uptake may improve scan accuracy. However, neither approach accomodates dependence of striatal uptake on age and gender. We investigated whether demographic indexing of visual and numerical variables improve discrimination of patients with essential tremor (ET), Parkinson's disease (PD), and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB).Entities:
Keywords: 123I–ioflupane; Brain SPECT; DaT; Dementia with Lewy bodies; Dopamine transporters; Parkinson’s disease
Year: 2018 PMID: 29855627 PMCID: PMC5960650 DOI: 10.1186/s41824-018-0028-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Hybrid Imaging ISSN: 2510-3636
Fig. 1DaT scan examples. DaT scan transaxial SPECT sections for: (a) a patient with essential tremor, showing high symmetric uptake in both caudate and putamen regions; (b) a patient with Parkinson’s disease, showing markedly reduced putamen activity and asymmetric caudate activity; (c) a patient with dementia with Lewy bodies, showing nearly absent caudate and putamen uptake
Fig. 2Physical phantom. a Physical phantom with syringes loaded with radioactivity representing caudate (C) and putamen (P) structures, and radioactivity loaded into surrounding water background (B). Reconstructed phantom images for simulations representing (b) essential tremor and (c) Parkinson’s disease
Visual and quantitative parameters for disease states
| ET | PD | MA | DLB | ANOVA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Visual | 0.81 ± 0.86 | 1.77 ± 0.55* | 2.00 ± 0.00* | 1.86 ± 0.38* | 18.9 |
| CSBR | 2.08 ± 0.52 | 1.30 ± 0.54* | 0.53 ± 0.23*† | 0.80 ± 0.25*† | 28.5 |
| PSBR | 1.24 ± 0.42 | 0.51 ± 0.36* | 0.22 ± 0.17*† | 0.28 ± 0.18*† | 38.9 |
| CAQ | 5.34 ± 2.04 | 3.8 ± 1.76* | 1.81 ± 1.39*† | 1.94 ± 1.12*† | 12.1 |
| PAQ | 2.11 ± 1.06 | 0.94 ± 0.61* | 0.59 ± 0.49* | 0.45 ± 0.40*† | 23.8 |
| Indexed Visual | 0.18 ± 0.19 | 0.39 ± 0.13* | 0.44 ± 0.02* | 0.44 ± 0.09*† | 17.2 |
| Indexed CSBR | 0.42 ± 0.11 | 0.25 ± 0.11* | 0.10 ± 0.04* | 0.16 ± 0.05* | 29.7 |
| Indexed PSBR | 0.28 ± 0.09 | 0.11 ± 0.08* | 0.05 ± 0.04* | 0.07 ± 0.05* | 41.2 |
| Indexed CAQ | 5.31 ± 1.09 | 3.67 ± 1.67* | 1.74 ± 1.34*† | 1.98 ± 1.11*† | 13.2 |
| Indexed PAQ | 2.38 ± 1.27 | 1.02 ± 1.27* | 0.64 ± 1.27* | 0.53 ± 0.48*† | 24.3 |
ET essential tremor, PD Parkinson’s disease, MA multiple system atrophy, DLB dementia with Lewy bodies, ANOVA analysis of variance, C caudate specific binding ratio, P putamen specific binding ratio, CAQ minimum caudate absolute quantitative uptake, PAQ minimum putamen absolute quantitative uptake
* p < 0.05 versus ET; † p < 0.05 versus PD
Fig. 3Putamen specific binding ratios. Putamen specific binding ratio (PSBR) plotted for patients with essential tremor (ET), Parkinson’s disease (PD), multiple system atrophy (MA) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB)
ROC result for discriminating patients with ET from those with PD
| Threshold for discrimination | Sensitivity | Specificity | Dichotomous Accuracy | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Visual | > 1 | 82% | 72%* | 79% |
| CSBR | < 1.56 | 79% | 86% | 81% |
| PSBR | < 0.76 | 85% | 89% | 86% |
| CAQ | < 4.73 | 78% | 56%* | 71%* |
| PAQ | <=1.70 | 87% | 67%* | 81% |
| Indexed Visual | > 0.24 | 85% | 72%* | 81% |
| Indexed CSBR | < 0.31 | 77% | 86% | 79% |
| Indexed PSBR | <=0.15 | 79% | 92% | 83% |
| Indexed CAQ | <=4.96 | 54%* | 81% | 62%* |
| Indexed PAQ | <=1.65 | 82% | 75% | 81% |
*p < 0.05 versus PSBR
ROC result for discriminating patients with ET from those with all other disease states (i.e., PD, MA and DLB)
| Threshold for discrimination | Sensitivity | Specificity | Dichotomous Accuracy | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Visual | > 1 | 84% | 71%* | 80% |
| CSBR | < 1.56 | 82% | 85% | 83% |
| PSBR | < 0.76 | 87% | 88% | 87% |
| CAQ | < 5.12 | 82% | 53%* | 74%* |
| PAQ | <=1.70 | 89% | 68%* | 83% |
| Indexed Visual | > 0.24 | 87% | 71%* | 83% |
| Indexed CSBR | < 0.31 | 80% | 85% | 81% |
| Indexed PSBR | <=0.16 | 82% | 91% | 84% |
| Indexed CAQ | <=3.65 | 59%* | 79% | 64%* |
| Indexed PAQ | <=1.66 | 85% | 74% | 82% |
*p < 0.05 versus PSBR
ROC result for discriminating patients with DLB from those with PD
| Threshold for discrimination | Sensitivity | Specificity | Dichotomous Accuracy | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Visual | > 1 | 100% | 6%* | 13%* |
| CSBR | <=0.87 | 100% | 60%* | 63%* |
| PSBR | <=0.15 | 57% | 87% | 85% |
| CAQ | <=1.71 | 71% | 87% | 86% |
| PAQ | <=0.32 | 71% | 86% | 85% |
| Indexed Visual | > 0.46 | 57% | 86% | 84% |
| Indexed CSBR | <=0.19 | 85% | 66%* | 67%* |
| Indexed PSBR | <=0.039 | 57% | 82% | 80% |
| Indexed CAQ | <=1.67 | 71% | 88% | 87% |
| Indexed PAQ | <=0.41 | 71% | 84% | 83% |
*p < 0.05 versus Indexed CAQ
ROC result for discriminating patients with DLB from all other patients (i.e., ET, PD and MA)
| Threshold for discrimination | Sensitivity | Specificity | Dichotomous Accuracy | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Visual | > 1 | 86% | 31%* | 34%* |
| CSBR | <=0.87 | 100% | 67%* | 69%* |
| PSBR | <=0.15 | 86% | 65%* | 66%* |
| CAQ | <=1.71 | 71% | 89% | 88% |
| PAQ | <=0.32 | 71% | 88% | 87% |
| Indexed Visual | > 0.47 | 57% | 88% | 86% |
| Indexed CSBR | <=0.19 | 86% | 72%* | 73%* |
| Indexed PSBR | <=0.039 | 86% | 60%* | 61%* |
| Indexed CAQ | <=1.67 | 71% | 90% | 89% |
| Indexed PAQ | <=0.41 | 71% | 86% | 86% |
*p < 0.05 versus Indexed CAQ
Fig. 4Visual scores. a Visual scores plotted for patients with ET, PD, MA and DLB. 4 (b) Indexed visual scores plotted for patients with ET, PD, MA and DLB