Abstract

BackgroundThe use of a normal database for [123I]FP-CIT SPECT imaging has been found to be helpful for cases which are difficult to interpret by visual assessment alone, and to improve reproducibility in scan interpretation. The aim of this study was to assess whether the use of different tomographic reconstructions affects the performance of a normal [123I]FP-CIT SPECT database and also whether systems benefit from a system characterisation before a database is used.Seventy-seven [123I]FP-CIT SPECT studies from two sites and with 3-year clinical follow-up were assessed quantitatively for scan normality using the ENC-DAT normal database obtained in well-documented healthy subjects. Patient and normal data were reconstructed with iterative reconstruction with correction for attenuation, scatter and septal penetration (ACSC), the same reconstruction without corrections (IRNC), and filtered back-projection (FBP) with data quantified using small volume-of-interest (VOI) (BRASS) and large VOI (Southampton) analysis methods. Test performance was assessed with and without system characterisation, using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis for age-independent data and using sensitivity/specificity analysis with age-matched normal values. The clinical diagnosis at follow-up was used as the standard of truth.ResultsThere were no significant differences in the age-independent quantitative assessment of scan normality across reconstructions, system characterisation and quantitative methods (ROC AUC 0.866–0.924). With BRASS quantification, there were no significant differences between the values of sensitivity (67.4–83.7%) or specificity (79.4–91.2%) across all reconstruction and calibration strategies. However, the Southampton method showed significant differences in sensitivity between ACSC (90.7%) vs IRNC (76.7%) and FBP (67.4%) reconstructions with calibration. Sensitivity using ACSC reconstruction with this method was also significantly better with calibration than without calibration (65.1%). Specificity using the Southampton method was unchanged across reconstruction and calibration choices (82.4–88.2%).ConclusionsThe ability of a normal [123I]FP-CIT SPECT database to assess clinical scan normality is equivalent across all reconstruction, system characterisation, and quantification strategies using BRASS quantification. However, when using the Southampton quantification method, performance is sensitive to the reconstruction and calibration strategy used.

Highlights

  • The use of a normal database for [123I]FP-CIT SPECT imaging has been found to be helpful for cases which are difficult to interpret by visual assessment alone, and to improve reproducibility in scan interpretation

  • There is no significant difference in overall diagnostic performance between the different reconstruction strategies, the highest areas under the curve (AUC) is seen with putaminal specific binding ratios (SBR) using BRASS software

  • With the Southampton quantification method, specificity remained similar across reconstructions and calibration strategies (82.4–88.2%), there were areas with significant changes in sensitivity

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The use of a normal database for [123I]FP-CIT SPECT imaging has been found to be helpful for cases which are difficult to interpret by visual assessment alone, and to improve reproducibility in scan interpretation. Seventy-seven [123I]FP-CIT SPECT studies from two sites and with 3-year clinical follow-up were assessed quantitatively for scan normality using the ENC-DAT normal database obtained in well-documented healthy subjects. To achieve the most accurate quantitative values possible, tomographic data was iteratively reconstructed with corrections for photon attenuation, photon scatter and septal penetration. This worked well to help achieve the aims of the project, for wider dissemination of the database throughout the nuclear medicine community, the use of corrections has proved to be problematic. In addition to these corrections, the iterative reconstruction algorithm itself is not available or preferred at some centres

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call