Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (12)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (12)
Document Type
- Journal article (10)
- Book article / Book chapter (1)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Language
- English (12) (remove)
Keywords
- risk (12) (remove)
Institute
- Institut für Klinische Epidemiologie und Biometrie (3)
- Klinik und Poliklinik für Nuklearmedizin (2)
- Betriebswirtschaftliches Institut (1)
- Frauenklinik und Poliklinik (1)
- Institut für Geographie und Geologie (1)
- Institut für Humangenetik (1)
- Institut für Pharmakologie und Toxikologie (1)
- Klinik und Poliklinik für Strahlentherapie (1)
- Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik I (1)
- Neurologische Klinik und Poliklinik (1)
Differential diagnosis of parkinsonism: a head-to-head comparison of FDG PET and MIBG scintigraphy
(2020)
[\(^{18}\)F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET and [\(^{123}\)I]metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) scintigraphy may contribute to the differential diagnosis of neurodegenerative parkinsonism. To identify the superior method, we retrospectively evaluated 54 patients with suspected neurodegenerative parkinsonism, who were referred for FDG PET and MIBG scintigraphy. Two investigators visually assessed FDG PET scans using an ordinal 6-step score for disease-specific patterns of Lewy body diseases (LBD) or atypical parkinsonism (APS) and assigned the latter to the subgroups multiple system atrophy (MSA), progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), or corticobasal syndrome. Regions-of-interest analysis on anterior planar MIBG images served to calculate the heart-to-mediastinum ratio. Movement disorder specialists blinded to imaging results established clinical follow-up diagnosis by means of guideline-derived case vignettes. Clinical follow-up (1.7 +/- 2.3 years) revealed the following diagnoses: n = 19 LBD (n = 17 Parkinson's disease [PD], n = 1 PD dementia, and n = 1 dementia with Lewy bodies), n = 31 APS (n = 28 MSA, n = 3 PSP), n = 3 non-neurodegenerative parkinsonism; n = 1 patient could not be diagnosed and was excluded. Receiver operating characteristic analyses for discriminating LBD vs. non-LBD revealed a larger area under the curve for FDG PET than for MIBG scintigraphy at statistical trend level for consensus rating (0.82 vs. 0.69, p = 0.06; significant for investigator #1: 0.83 vs. 0.69, p = 0.04). The analysis of PD vs. MSA showed a similar difference (0.82 vs. 0.69, p = 0.11; rater #1: 0.83 vs. 0.69, p = 0.07). Albeit the notable differences in diagnostic performance did not attain statistical significance, the authors consider this finding clinically relevant and suggest that FDG PET, which also allows for subgrouping of APS, should be preferred.
Background Current research in breast cancer focuses on individualization of local and systemic therapies with adequate escalation or de-escalation strategies. As a result, about two-thirds of breast cancer patients can be cured, but up to one-third eventually develop metastatic disease, which is considered incurable with currently available treatment options. This underscores the importance to develop a metastatic recurrence score to escalate or de-escalate treatment strategies. Patients and methods Data from 10,499 patients were available from 17 clinical cancer registries (BRENDA-project. In total, 8566 were used to develop the BRENDA-Index. This index was calculated from the regression coefficients of a Cox regression model for metastasis-free survival (MFS). Based on this index, patients were categorized into very high, high, intermediate, low, and very low risk groups forming the BRENDA-Score. Bootstrapping was used for internal validation and an independent dataset of 1883 patients for external validation. The predictive accuracy was checked by Harrell's c-index. In addition, the BRENDA-Score was analyzed as a marker for overall survival (OS) and compared to the Nottingham prognostic score (NPS). Results: Intrinsic subtypes, tumour size, grading, and nodal status were identified as statistically significant prognostic factors in the multivariate analysis. The five prognostic groups of the BRENDA-Score showed highly significant (p < 0.001) differences regarding MFS:low risk: hazard ratio (HR) = 2.4, 95%CI (1.7–3.3); intermediate risk: HR = 5.0, 95%CI.(3.6–6.9); high risk: HR = 10.3, 95%CI (7.4–14.3) and very high risk: HR = 18.1, 95%CI (13.2–24.9). The external validation showed congruent results. A multivariate Cox regression model for OS with BRENDA-Score and NPS as covariates showed that of these two scores only the BRENDA-Score is significant (BRENDA-Score p < 0.001; NPS p = 0.447). Therefore, the BRENDA-Score is also a good prognostic marker for OS. Conclusion: The BRENDA-Score is an internally and externally validated robust predictive tool for metastatic recurrence in breast cancer patients. It is based on routine parameters easily accessible in daily clinical care. In addition, the BRENDA-Score is a good prognostic marker for overall survival. Highlights: The BRENDA-Score is a highly significant predictive tool for metastatic recurrence of breast cancer patients. The BRENDA-Score is stable for at least the first five years after primary diagnosis, i.e., the sensitivities and specificities of this predicting system is rather similar to the NPI with AUCs between 0.76 and 0.81 the BRENDA-Score is a good prognostic marker for overall survival.