4.6 Review

Optimizing Parkinson's disease diagnosis: the role of a dual nuclear imaging algorithm

期刊

NPJ PARKINSONS DISEASE
卷 4, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41531-018-0041-9

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The diagnosis of Parkinson's disease (PD) currently relies almost exclusively on the clinical judgment of an experienced neurologist, ideally a specialist in movement disorders. However, such clinical diagnosis is often incorrect in a large percentage of patients, particularly in the early stages of the disease. A commercially available, objective and quantitative marker of nigrostriatal neurodegeneration was recently provided by 123-iodine I-123-ioflupane SPECT imaging, which is however unable to differentiate PD from a variety of other parkinsonian syndromes associated with striatal dopamine deficiency. There is evidence to support an algorithm utilizing a dual neuroimaging strategy combining I-123-ioflupane SPECT and the noradrenergic receptor ligand I-123-metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG), which assesses the post-ganglion peripheral autonomic nervous system. Evolving concepts regarding the synucleinopathy affecting the central and peripheral autonomic nervous systems as part of a multisystem disease are reviewed to sustain such strategy. Data are presented to show how MIBG deficits are a common feature of multisystem Lewy body disease and can be used as a unique feature to distinguish PD from atypical parkinsonisms. We propose that the combination of cardiac (MIBG) and cerebral I-123-ioflupane SPECT could satisfy one of the most significant unmet needs of current PD diagnosis and management, namely the early and accurate diagnosis of patients with typical Lewy body PD. Exemplary case scenarios will be described, highlighting how dual neuroimaging strategy can maximize diagnostic accuracy for patient care, clinical trials, pre-symptomatic PD screening, and special cases provided by specific genetic mutations associated with PD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据