Natsumi Shimokawa1, Go Akamatsu2, Miyako Kadosaki3,4, Masayuki Sasaki5. 1. Division of Medical Quantum Science, Department of Health Sciences, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan. 2. National Institute of Radiological Sciences (NIRS), National Institutes for Quantum and Radiological Science and Technology (QST), 4-9-1 Anagawa, Inage-ku, Chiba, 263-8555, Japan. 3. Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan. 4. Department of Radiological Technology, Kyushu Central Hospital, 3-23-1 Shiobaru, Minami-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8588, Japan. 5. Division of Medical Quantum Science, Department of Health Sciences, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan. msasaki@hs.med.kyushu-u.ac.jp.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Visual evaluation is the standard for amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) examination, though the result depends upon the physician's subjective review of the images. Therefore, it is expected that objective quantitative evaluation is useful for image interpretation. In this study, we examined the usefulness of the quantitative evaluation of amyloid PET using a PET-only quantification method in comparison with visual evaluation. METHODS: In this study we retrospectively investigated a total of 166 individuals, including 58 cognitively normal controls, 62 individuals with mild cognitive impairment, and 46 individuals with early Alzheimer's disease. They underwent 11C-Pittsburgh compound-B (PiB) PET examination through the Japanese Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (J-ADNI). Amyloid accumulation in cerebral cortices was assessed using visual and quantitative methods. The quantitative evaluation was performed using the adaptive template method and empirically PiB-prone region of interest, and the standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) in each area was obtained. RESULTS: Visual evaluation and SUVR were significantly correlated in the cerebral cortices (ρ = 0.85-0.87; p < 0.05). In visual evaluation, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 78%, 76%, and 77%, respectively. Meanwhile, for quantitative evaluation, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 77%, 79%, and 78% in mean cortical SUVR (mcSUVR) and 79%, 79%, and 79% in maximum SUVR (maxSUVR), respectively. CONCLUSION: The PET-only quantification method provided a concordant result with visual evaluation and was considered useful for amyloid PET.
OBJECTIVE: Visual evaluation is the standard for amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) examination, though the result depends upon the physician's subjective review of the images. Therefore, it is expected that objective quantitative evaluation is useful for image interpretation. In this study, we examined the usefulness of the quantitative evaluation of amyloid PET using a PET-only quantification method in comparison with visual evaluation. METHODS: In this study we retrospectively investigated a total of 166 individuals, including 58 cognitively normal controls, 62 individuals with mild cognitive impairment, and 46 individuals with early Alzheimer's disease. They underwent 11C-Pittsburgh compound-B (PiB) PET examination through the Japanese Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (J-ADNI). Amyloid accumulation in cerebral cortices was assessed using visual and quantitative methods. The quantitative evaluation was performed using the adaptive template method and empirically PiB-prone region of interest, and the standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) in each area was obtained. RESULTS: Visual evaluation and SUVR were significantly correlated in the cerebral cortices (ρ = 0.85-0.87; p < 0.05). In visual evaluation, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 78%, 76%, and 77%, respectively. Meanwhile, for quantitative evaluation, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 77%, 79%, and 78% in mean cortical SUVR (mcSUVR) and 79%, 79%, and 79% in maximum SUVR (maxSUVR), respectively. CONCLUSION: The PET-only quantification method provided a concordant result with visual evaluation and was considered useful for amyloid PET.
Authors: Brian J Lopresti; William E Klunk; Chester A Mathis; Jessica A Hoge; Scott K Ziolko; Xueling Lu; Carolyn C Meltzer; Kurt Schimmel; Nicholas D Tsopelas; Steven T DeKosky; Julie C Price Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-12 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: Craig Curtis; Jose E Gamez; Upinder Singh; Carl H Sadowsky; Teresa Villena; Marwan N Sabbagh; Thomas G Beach; Ranjan Duara; Adam S Fleisher; Kirk A Frey; Zuzana Walker; Arvinder Hunjan; Clive Holmes; Yavir M Escovar; Carla X Vera; Marc E Agronin; Joel Ross; Andrea Bozoki; Mary Akinola; Jiong Shi; Rik Vandenberghe; Milos D Ikonomovic; Paul F Sherwin; Igor D Grachev; Gillian Farrar; Adrian P L Smith; Christopher J Buckley; Richard McLain; Stephen Salloway Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Juha O Rinne; David J Brooks; Martin N Rossor; Nick C Fox; Roger Bullock; William E Klunk; Chester A Mathis; Kaj Blennow; Jerome Barakos; Aren A Okello; Sofia Rodriguez Martinez de Liano; Enchi Liu; Martin Koller; Keith M Gregg; Dale Schenk; Ronald Black; Michael Grundman Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2010-02-26 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Christopher M Clark; Julie A Schneider; Barry J Bedell; Thomas G Beach; Warren B Bilker; Mark A Mintun; Michael J Pontecorvo; Franz Hefti; Alan P Carpenter; Matthew L Flitter; Michael J Krautkramer; Hank F Kung; R Edward Coleman; P Murali Doraiswamy; Adam S Fleisher; Marwan N Sabbagh; Carl H Sadowsky; Eric P Reiman; P Eric M Reiman; Simone P Zehntner; Daniel M Skovronsky Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-01-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Christopher M Clark; Michael J Pontecorvo; Thomas G Beach; Barry J Bedell; R Edward Coleman; P Murali Doraiswamy; Adam S Fleisher; Eric M Reiman; Marwan N Sabbagh; Carl H Sadowsky; Julie A Schneider; Anupa Arora; Alan P Carpenter; Matthew L Flitter; Abhinay D Joshi; Michael J Krautkramer; Ming Lu; Mark A Mintun; Daniel M Skovronsky Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2012-06-28 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Randall J Bateman; Chengjie Xiong; Tammie L S Benzinger; Anne M Fagan; Alison Goate; Nick C Fox; Daniel S Marcus; Nigel J Cairns; Xianyun Xie; Tyler M Blazey; David M Holtzman; Anna Santacruz; Virginia Buckles; Angela Oliver; Krista Moulder; Paul S Aisen; Bernardino Ghetti; William E Klunk; Eric McDade; Ralph N Martins; Colin L Masters; Richard Mayeux; John M Ringman; Martin N Rossor; Peter R Schofield; Reisa A Sperling; Stephen Salloway; John C Morris Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-07-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jarith L Ebenau; Denise Visser; Lior A Kroeze; Mardou S S A van Leeuwenstijn; Argonde C van Harten; Albert D Windhorst; Sandeep V S Golla; Ronald Boellaard; Philip Scheltens; Frederik Barkhof; Bart N M van Berckel; Wiesje M van der Flier Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2022-09-03 Impact factor: 8.823