4.2 Article

Multicenter Semiquantitative Evaluation of 123I-FP-CIT Brain SPECT

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROIMAGING
Volume 25, Issue 6, Pages 1023-1029

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jon.12242

Keywords

Movement disorder; Parkinson's disease; I-123-FP-CIT-SPECT; semiquantitative evaluation; multicenter study

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AIMSThe aims of this study were: (1) to cross-compare data from semiquantitative, software-assisted, and phantom-corrected evaluations of I-123-ioflupane [I-123]N--fluoropropyl-2-carbomethoxy-3-{4-iodophenyl}nortropane FP-CIT brain single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) acquired in three centers; (2) to assess the accuracy of semiquantitative evaluation; and (3) to identify the threshold with the best accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity in patients with suspected Parkinsonian Syndrome. MATERIAL AND METHODSTwo-hundred-twenty patients, acquired in three centers, were included. All of them underwent I-123-FP-CIT brain SPECT. All examinations were analyzed with the freely available software, BasGan, and semiquantitative data were used to predict disease. Analysis was based on the values from the most deteriorated putamen and caudate, normalized for age, and corrected by anthropomorphic phantom data. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed and areas under the curve (AUC) were estimated. RESULTSAnalysis showed high AUCs (.880, .866, .920, and .882 for each center and multicenter setting). Best thresholds were 1.53 and 1.56 for putamen and caudate, respectively. Thresholds of putamen data showed sensitivity and specificity of 86% and 89%, respectively, in the multicenter setting. Neither sensibility nor specificity showed significant differences among centers. CONCLUSIONA unique, accurate threshold for all centers, with high sensitivity and specificity was identified. Semiquantitative assessment of I-123-FP-CIT brain SPECT among different centers resulted reliable, accurate, and potentially useful in clinical trials.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available