NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
[18F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET and [123I]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.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.