A Comparative Study between Semi-Quantitative Analysis in [F-18]FDG Brain PET/ CT Scan using Two Different Software Packages in the Diagnosis of Alzheimer’s Disease
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objectives: To compare the results from semi-quantitative analysis of [F-18]FDG brain PET/CT scan obtained from two different software packages (CortexID and Q.brain). In addition, to evaluate the diagnostic performance of 3D-SSP Z-score map images obtained from 2 software packages in the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease as compared to gold standard.
Methods: Retrospective study was done on pre-existing data of [F-18]FDG PET/ CT images acquired from 85 elderly Thai participants (21 cognitively normal elderly subjects, 32 patients with mild cognitive impairment and 32 patients with Alzheimer’s disease). Semi-quantitative analysis of all PET images was performed using 2 software packages and Z-score results were compared. The diagnostic performance in Alzheimer’s disease was also assessed using gold standard. t-test was applied for statistical analysis and p value <0.05 was considered as statistically significant.
Results: There were statistically significant difference in Z-score results at bilateral medial frontal and bilateral occipital association regions using all normalized regions and left posterior cingulate using global cortex and cerebellar normalization. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV, NPV, LR- CortexID were 79.17%, 100%, 89.13%, 100%, 81.48% and 0.21, respectively for AD diagnosis, which were better than those of Q. brain.
Conclusion: The Z-score results from 2 different software packages in [F-18]FDG brain PET can be significantly different in some regions, which should be careful for interpretation. Pons normalization may reduce this difference. In this pilot study, CortexID software package shows better performance in differentiating AD from normal elderly.
Article Details
References
Ferri CP, Prince M, Brayne C, Brodaty H, Fratiglioni L, Ganguli M, et al. Global prevalence of dementia: a Delphi consensus study. Lancet 2005;366(9503):2112-7.
Tupanich W, Chaiyalap K. Problems and Needs of Older Adults Living in Urban Area, Bangkok Metropolitan. Vajira Med J 2019;63:S83-92.
Fratiglioni L, Launer LJ, Andersen K, Breteler MM, Copeland JR, Dartigues JF, et al. Incidence of dementia and major subtypes in Europe: A collaborative study of population-based cohorts. Neurologic Diseases in the Elderly Research Group. Neurology 2000;54(11 Suppl 5):S10-5.
Beach TG, Monsell SE, Phillips LE, Kukull W. Accuracy of the clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer disease at National Institute on Aging Alzheimer Disease Centers, 2005-2010. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol 2012;71(4):266-73.
Zeglis BM, Holland JP, Lebedev AY, Cantorias MV, Lewis JS. Radiopharmaceuticals for imaging in oncology with special emphasis on positron-emitting agents. In:H.W. Strauss, editor. Nuclear Oncology: Pathophysiology and Clinical Applications. 1st ed. New York: Springer Science+Business Media;2013. p. 35-78.
Richard K. J. Brown, Nicolaas I. Bohnen, Ka Kit Wong, Satoshi Minoshima, Frey KA. Brain PET in Suspected Dementia: Patterns of Altered FDG Metabolism. RadioGraphics 2014;34:684-701.
Patching S. Roles of facilitative glucose transporter GLUT1 in [18F]FDG positron emission tomography (PET) imaging of human diseases. J Diagn Imaging Ther 2015;2(1):30-102.
Morris E, Chalkidou A, Hammers A, Peacock J, Summers J, Keevil S. Diagnostic accuracy of (18) F amyloid PET tracers for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2016;43(2):374-85.
Lowe VJ, Peller PJ, Weigand SD, Montoya Quintero C, Tosakulwong N, Vemuri P, et al. Application of the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association AD criteria to ADNI. Neurology 2013;80(23):2130-7.
Jack Jr CR, Bennett DA, Blennow K, Carrillo MC, Dunn B, Haeberlein SB, et al. NIA‐AA research framework: toward a biological definition of Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's & Dementia 2018;14(4):535-62.
Frisoni GB, Bocchetta M, Chetelat G, Rabinovici GD, de Leon MJ, Kaye J, et al. Imaging markers for Alzheimer disease: which vs how. Neurology 2013;81(5):487-500.
Burdette JH, Minoshima S, Vander Borght T, Tran DD, Kuhl DE. Alzheimer disease: improved visual interpretation of PET images by using three-dimensional stereotaxic surface projections. Radiology 1996;198(3):837-43.
Foster NL, Heidebrink JL, Clark CM, Jagust WJ, Arnold SE, Barbas NR, et al. FDG-PET improves accuracy in distinguishing frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer's disease. Brain 2007;130(10):2616-35.
Kim J, Cho SG, Song M, Kang SR, Kwon SY, Choi KH, et al. Usefulness of 3-dimensional stereotactic surface projection FDG PET images for the diagnosis of dementia. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016;95(49):e5622.
Minoshima S, Frey KA, Koeppe RA, Foster NL, Kuhl DE. A diagnostic approach in Alzheimer's disease using three-dimensional stereotactic surface projections of fluorine-18-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 1995;36(7):1238-48.
Minoshima S, Koeppe RA, Mintun MA, Berger KL, Taylor SF, Frey KA, et al. Automated detection of the intercommissural line for stereotactic localization of functional brain images. J Nucl Med 1993;34(2):322-9.
Mandal PK, Mahajan R, Dinov ID. Structural brain atlases: design, rationale, and applications in normal and pathological cohorts. J Alzheimers Dis 2012;31 Suppl 3:S169-88.
Evans AC, Collins DL, Mills SR, Brown ED, Kelly RL, Peters TM. 3D statistical neuroanatomical models from 305 MRI volumes. 1993 IEEE Conference Record Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference: IEEE; 1993. p. 1813-7
Anvari A, Halpern EF, Samir AE. Statistics 101 for radiologists. Radiographics 2015;35(6):1789-801.
Šimundić A-M. Measures of diagnostic accuracy: basic definitions. Ejifcc 2009;19(4):203.
Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. ADNI-GO PET Technical Procedures Manual for FDG and AV-45 [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2020 January 14]. Available from http://adni.loni.usc.edu/wp- content/uploads/2010/05/ADNIGO_PET_Tech_Manual_ 01142011.pdf
Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. ADNI 2 PET Technical Procedures Manual for FDG and AV-45 [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2020 January 14]. Available from http://adni.loni.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/ADNI2_PET_Tech_Manual_0142011.pdf
Thientunyakit T, Sethanandha C, Muangpaisan W, Chawalparit O, Arunrungvichian K, Siriprapa T, et al. Relationships between amyloid levels, glucose metabolism, morphologic changes in the brain and clinical status of patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Ann Nucl Med 2020;34:337-48.
Minoshima S, Frey KA, Foster NL, Kuhl DE. Preserved pontine glucose metabolism in Alzheimer disease: a reference region for functional brain image (PET) analysis. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1995;19(4):541-7.
Dukart J, Mueller K, Horstmann A, Vogt B, Frisch S, Barthel H, et al. Differential effects of global and cerebellar normalization on detection and differentiation of dementia in FDG-PET studies. Neuroimage 2010;49(2):1490-5.
Clark CM, Schneider JA, Bedell BJ, Beach TG, Bilker WB, Mintun MA, et al. Use of florbetapir-PET for imaging beta-amyloid pathology. JAMA 2011;305(3):275-83.
Lehman VT, Carter RE, Claassen DO, Murphy RC, Lowe V, Petersen RC, et al. Visual assessment versus quantitative three-dimensional stereotactic surface projection fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for detection of mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer disease. Clin Nucl Med 2012;37(8):721-6.
Trevethan R. Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predictive Values: Foundations, Pliabilities, and Pitfalls in Research and Practice. Frontiers in public health 2017;5:1-7.
Weiner MW, Veitch DP, Aisen PS, Beckett LA, Cairns NJ, Green RC, et al. Recent publications from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative: Reviewing progress toward improved AD clinical trials. Alzheimers Dement 2017;13(4):e1-85.
Lancaster JL, Tordesillas-Gutierrez D, Martinez M, Salinas F, Evans A, Zilles K, et al. Bias between MNI and Talairach coordinates analyzed using the ICBM-152 brain template. Hum Brain Mapp 2007;28(11):1194-205.
Laird AR, Robinson JL, McMillan KM, Tordesillas-Gutierrez D, Moran ST, Gonzales SM, et al. Comparison of the disparity between Talairach and MNI coordinates in functional neuroimaging data: validation of the Lancaster transform. Neuroimage 2010;51(2):677-83.