Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (26)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (26)
Year of publication
- 2018 (26) (remove)
Document Type
- Journal article (18)
- Preprint (5)
- Conference Proceeding (3)
Language
- English (26)
Keywords
- Positronen-Emissions-Tomografie (15)
- PET (14)
- positron emission tomography (8)
- neuroendocrine tumor (5)
- SPECT (4)
- 18F-DCFPyL (3)
- 18F-FDG (3)
- DaTscan (3)
- PET/CT (3)
- RADS (3)
Institute
- Klinik und Poliklinik für Nuklearmedizin (26) (remove)
Sonstige beteiligte Institutionen
- Johns Hopkins School of Medicine (13)
- Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine (5)
- Department of Biomedical Imaging, National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Research Center, Suita, Japan (2)
- Division of Medical Technology and Science, Department of Medical Physics and Engineering, Course of Health Science, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Suita Japan (2)
- Institut for Molecular Biology and CMBI, Department of Genomics, Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, Leopold-Franzens-University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria (2)
- Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, The Russell H Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Baltimore, MD, USA (2)
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Kanazawa University (1)
- Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA (1)
- Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, U.S. (1)
- National Cardiovascular and Cerebral Center, Suita, Japan (1)
EU-Project number / Contract (GA) number
- 701983 (26)
PURPOSE:
We aimed to (a) elucidate the concordance of visual assessment of an initial I-ioflupane scan by a human interpreter with comparison to results using a fully automatic semiquantitative method and (b) to assess the accuracy compared to follow-up (f/u) diagnosis established by movement disorder specialists.
METHODS:
An initial I-ioflupane scan was performed in 382 patients with clinically uncertain Parkinsonian syndrome. An experienced reader performed a visual evaluation of all scans independently. The findings of the visual read were compared with semiquantitative evaluation. In addition, available f/u clinical diagnosis (serving as a reference standard) was compared with results of the human read and the software.
RESULTS:
When comparing the semiquantitative method with the visual assessment, discordance could be found in 25 (6.5%) of 382 of the cases for the experienced reader (ĸ = 0.868). The human observer indicated region of interest misalignment as the main reason for discordance. With neurology f/u serving as reference, the results of the reader revealed a slightly higher accuracy rate (87.7%, ĸ = 0.75) compared to semiquantification (86.2%, ĸ = 0.719, P < 0.001, respectively). No significant difference in the diagnostic performance of the visual read versus software-based assessment was found.
CONCLUSIONS:
In comparison with a fully automatic semiquantitative method in I-ioflupane interpretation, human assessment obtained an almost perfect agreement rate. However, compared to clinical established diagnosis serving as a reference, visual read seemed to be slightly more accurate as a solely software-based quantitative assessment.