Interobserver reproducibility of the interpretation of I-123 FP-CIT single-photon emission computed tomography

Tondeur, Marianne; Hambye, Anne-Sophie; Dethy, Sophie; Ham, Hamphrey R.

doi:10.1097/mnm.0b013e32833b7ea4

Cited by 19 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other published studies on semi-quantification have focused on its use in intra and inter observer variability [4,7] and its association with visual assessment and clinical parameters [8].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automated quantification with BRASS reduces equivocal reporting of DaTSCAN (123I-FP-CIT) SPECT studies

Pencharz

Hanlon²,

Chakravartty

et al. 2014

Nucl. Med. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automated quantification with BRASS reduces equivocal reporting of DaTSCAN (123I-FP-CIT) SPECT studies

Pencharz

Hanlon²,

Chakravartty

et al. 2014

Nucl. Med. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As of late, different evaluation techniques and a number of radiotracers have been proposed, with 123 I‐FP‐CIT being the most widely used radiopharmaceutical on account of its high binding affinity for presynaptic dopamine transporters, its high specific‐to‐nonspecific ratio and the relatively short injection‐to‐scan interval. Qualitative evaluation of DAT‐SPECT imaging has recently come under scrutiny with regard to reproducibility . The latter could depend, inter alia , on three main factors, namely observer's experience, imaging equipment, and prevalence of the disease in the patient population.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6,7 DAT-SPECT is usually assessed through qualitative analysis, which raises questions as to the reproducibility of the technique. 8 Several authors, as well as the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM), encourage both collegial discussion and the adoption of standardized interpretation criteria based on automated, semi-quantitative evaluations 9,10 with a view to ensuring uniformity among different institutions. This, in turn is a prerequisite for multicenter studies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the Accuracy and Reproducibility of Computer‐Assisted Analysis of ¹²³I‐FP‐CIT SPECT Using BasGan (V2)

Skanjeti

Angusti

Iudicello

et al. 2013

Journal of Neuroimaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The consistency between visual and semiquantitative assessments has also been investigated, with encouraging results (11-13). Tondeur et al (14) looked at the reproducibility of a mixed visual and semiquantitative approach when interpreting 123 I-FP-CIT SPECT data. Thirty nuclear medicine physicians of varying experience were asked to assess 12 scans using a combination of visual and semiquantitative data.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The study by Tondeur et al (14) highlighted a general problem with the semiquantitative approach for 123 I-FP-CIT SPECT imaging-that normal reference values have not been easily available. Because of interscanner differences in, for example, sensitivity and collimator design and lack of standardization in imaging and reconstruction protocols, center-specific reference values have historically been needed.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Value of Semiquantitative Analysis for Clinical Reporting of¹²³I-2-β-Carbomethoxy-3β-(4-Iodophenyl)-N-(3-Fluoropropyl)Nortropane SPECT Studies

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clinical 123 I-2-b-carbomethoxy-3b-(4-iodophenyl)-N-(3-fluoropropyl)nortropane ( 123 I-FP-CIT) SPECT studies are commonly performed and reported using visual evaluation of tracer binding, an inherently subjective method. Increased objectivity can potentially be obtained using semiquantitative analysis. In this study, we assessed whether semiquantitative analysis of 123 I-FP-CIT tracer binding created more reproducible clinical reporting. A secondary aim was to determine in what form semiquantitative data should be provided to the reporter. Methods: Fifty-four patients referred for the assessment of nigrostriatal dopaminergic degeneration were scanned using SPECT/CT, followed by semiquantitative analysis calculating striatal binding ratios (SBRs) and caudate-to-putamen ratios (CPRs). Normal reference values were obtained using 131 healthy controls enrolled on a multicenter initiative backed by the European Association of Nuclear Medicine. A purely quantitative evaluation was first performed, with each striatum scored as normal or abnormal according to reference values. Three experienced nuclear medicine physicians then scored each striatum as normal or abnormal, also indicating cases perceived as difficult, using visual evaluation, visual evaluation in combination with SBR data, and visual evaluation in combination with SBR and CPR data. Intra-and interobserver agreement and agreement between observers and the purely quantitative evaluation were assessed using k-statistics. The agreement between scan interpretation and clinical diagnosis was assessed for patients with a postscan clinical diagnosis available (n 5 35). Results: The physicians showed consistent reporting, with a good intraobserver agreement obtained for the visual interpretation (mean k 6 SD, 0.95 6 0.029). Although visual interpretation of tracer binding gave good interobserver agreement (0.80 6 0.045), this was improved as SBRs (0.86 6 0.070) and CPRs (0.95 6 0.040) were provided. The number of striata perceived as difficult to interpret decreased as semiquantitative data were provided (30 for the visual interpretation; 0 as SBR and CPR values were given). The agreement between physicians' interpretations and the purely quantitative evaluation showed that readers used the semiquantitative data to different extents, with a more experienced reader relying less on the semiquantitative data. Good agreement between scan interpretation and clinical diagnosis was seen. Conclusion: A combined approach of visual assessment and semiquantitative analysis of tracer binding created more reproducible clinical reporting of 123 I-FP-CIT SPECT studies. Physicians should have access to both SBR and CPR data to minimize interobserver variability.

show abstract

Interobserver reproducibility of the interpretation of I-123 FP-CIT single-photon emission computed tomography

Cited by 19 publications

References 22 publications

Automated quantification with BRASS reduces equivocal reporting of DaTSCAN (123I-FP-CIT) SPECT studies

Automated quantification with BRASS reduces equivocal reporting of DaTSCAN (123I-FP-CIT) SPECT studies

Assessing the Accuracy and Reproducibility of Computer‐Assisted Analysis of ¹²³I‐FP‐CIT SPECT Using BasGan (V2)

Value of Semiquantitative Analysis for Clinical Reporting of¹²³I-2-β-Carbomethoxy-3β-(4-Iodophenyl)-N-(3-Fluoropropyl)Nortropane SPECT Studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Interobserver reproducibility of the interpretation of I-123 FP-CIT single-photon emission computed tomography

Cited by 19 publications

References 22 publications

Automated quantification with BRASS reduces equivocal reporting of DaTSCAN (123I-FP-CIT) SPECT studies

Automated quantification with BRASS reduces equivocal reporting of DaTSCAN (123I-FP-CIT) SPECT studies

Assessing the Accuracy and Reproducibility of Computer‐Assisted Analysis of 123I‐FP‐CIT SPECT Using BasGan (V2)

Value of Semiquantitative Analysis for Clinical Reporting of123I-2-β-Carbomethoxy-3β-(4-Iodophenyl)-N-(3-Fluoropropyl)Nortropane SPECT Studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Assessing the Accuracy and Reproducibility of Computer‐Assisted Analysis of ¹²³I‐FP‐CIT SPECT Using BasGan (V2)

Value of Semiquantitative Analysis for Clinical Reporting of¹²³I-2-β-Carbomethoxy-3β-(4-Iodophenyl)-N-(3-Fluoropropyl)Nortropane SPECT Studies