Published August 2018 | Version v1
Journal article

Automated assessment of FDG-PET for differential diagnosis in patients with neurodegenerative disorders

  • 1. University of Genoa and Polyclinic San Martino Hospital, Department of Neuroscience (DINOGMI), Genoa (Italy)
  • 2. University of Brescia, Department of Molecular and Translational Medicine, Brescia (Italy)
  • 3. IRCCS S. Giovanni di Dio Fatebenefratelli, LANE - Laboratory of Alzheimer's Neuroimaging and Epidemiology, Brescia (Italy)
  • 4. Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Neuroimaging Research Unit, Institute of Experimental Neurology, Division of Neuroscience, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan (Italy)
  • 5. IRCCS S. Giovanni di Dio Fatebenefratelli, Alzheimer Operative Unit, Brescia (Italy)
  • 6. KU Leuven, Department of Imaging and Pathology, Leuven (Belgium)
  • 7. University Hospitals Leuven, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Leuven (Belgium)
  • 8. University of Navarra, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona (Spain)
  • 9. VU University Medical Center, Department of Neurology and Alzheimer Center, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam (Netherlands)
  • 10. University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne and German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Department of Nuclear Medicine, Cologne (Germany)
  • 11. University of Queensland and Mater Hospital, Queensland Brain Institute, Brisbane (Australia)
  • 12. German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Magdeburg (Germany)
  • 13. University College London, Division of Psychiatry and Essex Partnership University, London (United Kingdom)
  • 14. University of Geneva, LANVIE (Laboratoire de Neuroimagerie du Vieillissement), Department of Psychiatry, Chene-Bourg, Geneva (Switzerland)

Description

To review literature until November 2015 and reach a consensus on whether automatic semi-quantification of brain FDG-PET is useful in the clinical setting for neurodegenerative disorders. A literature search was conducted in Medline, Embase, and Google Scholar. Papers were selected with a lower limit of 30 patients (no limits with autopsy confirmation). Consensus recommendations were developed through a Delphi procedure, based on the expertise of panelists, who were also informed about the availability and quality of evidence, assessed by an independent methodology team. Critical outcomes were available in nine among the 17 papers initially selected. Only three papers performed a direct comparison between visual and automated assessment and quantified the incremental value provided by the latter. Sensitivity between visual and automatic analysis is similar but automatic assessment generally improves specificity and marginally accuracy. Also, automated assessment increases diagnostic confidence. As expected, performance of visual analysis is reported to depend on the expertise of readers. Tools for semi-quantitative evaluation are recommended to assist the nuclear medicine physician in reporting brain FDG-PET pattern in neurodegenerative conditions. However, heterogeneity, complexity, and drawbacks of these tools should be known by users to avoid misinterpretation. Head-to-head comparisons and an effort to harmonize procedures are encouraged. (orig.)

Availability note (English)

Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-4030-3

Additional details

Identifiers

Publishing Information

Journal Title
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
Journal Volume
45
Journal Issue
9
Series
Topical issue on brain imaging including the special section: Diagnostic utility of FDG-PET in dementia. Literature evidence and expert opinion
Journal Page Range
p. 1557-1566
ISSN
1619-7070
CODEN
EJNMA6