SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Comparison of early F-18 Florbetaben PET/CT to Tc-99m ECD SPECT using voxel, regional, and network analysis.

Sci Rep · 2021-08-18

DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-95808-8PMID: 34408171

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

This study aimed to validate early-phase F-18 Florbetaben positron emission tomography (eFBB PET) as a brain perfusion test and determine the optimal reference region. A total of 27 patients with early Parkinson's disease with Tc-99m ethyl cysteinate dimer single photon emission tomography (ECD SPECT) and FBB PET were included. Six reference regions, including whole brain (GN), pons, central white matter (CWM), whole cerebellum (WC), WC with brain stem (WC + B), and cerebellar grey matter (CG), were applied to obtain SUVR using cortex volume-of-interest (VOI). Reference regions of WC (r 0.886), WC + B (r 0.897), and CG (r 0.904) had highest correlation values of cortex-VOI SUVR between both perfusion images (all p < 0.001). Early-phase FBB PET had a significant linear correlation of CG-normalized SUVR of the cortex, basal ganglia, thalamus, and midbrain with ECD SPECT in voxel-wise analysis (FDR adjusted-p < 0.05). Early-phase FBB PET extracts more ICNS than ECD SPECT, as 9 ICNS and 4 ICNs, respectively. Both eFBB PET and ECD SPECT well discriminated PD from DLB (Area-under-curve of receiver-operating-characteristics, 0.911 for eFBB PET, 0.922 for ECD SPECT). Our findings suggest that eFBB PET is a reliable perfusion test based on a high correlation with ECD SPECT using cerebellum-based normalization methods.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.