SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Brain Evaluation by Dual PET/CT with [<sup>18</sup>F] FDOPA and [<sup>18</sup>F] FDG in Differential Diagnosis of Parkinsonian Syndromes.

Brain Sci · 2024-09-18

DOI: 10.3390/brainsci14090930PMID: 39335427

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Parkinsonian syndromes are considered clinicopathological conditions that are challenging to diagnose. Molecular imaging with [18F]-FDOPA and [18F]-FDG contributes to a more accurate clinical diagnosis by evaluating presynaptic dopaminergic pathways and glucose metabolism, respectively. The aim of this study was to correlate diagnoses made from dual PET/CT with the initial clinical diagnoses, as well as during follow-ups in patients with Parkinsonian syndromes. A secondary objective was to describe the imaging findings. Methods: A total of 150 patients with a clinical diagnosis of neurodegenerative Parkinsonism were evaluated using dual PET/CT. Clinically, 82% were diagnosed with PD, while the remaining 18% had an atypical Parkinsonism. Results: Using dual PET/CT, the most frequent diagnosis was PD in 67% of the patients, with the rest being diagnosed with an atypical Parkinsonism. In an agreement analysis between the initial clinical diagnosis and the imaging diagnosis by dual PET/CT, a concordance of 94.1% (n = 95) was observed for PD. In the remaining patients, the clinical diagnosis differed from that suggested by dual PET/CT, with atypical Parkinsonian syndromes being diagnosed as DLB in 40% (n = 4), PSP in 46.7% (n = 7), MSA-C in 75% (n = 6), MSA-P in 70% (n = 7), and CBD in 66.7% (n = 4). A total of 38.66% (n = 58) of patients were followed up (median follow-up of 27 months), with a Kappa coefficient of 0.591 (p Conclusions: Dual FDOPA-FDG PET/CT demonstrated moderate agreement with the initial clinical diagnosis of Parkinsonism and moderate to substantial agreement during follow-up. This dual technique, therefore, stands out in differentiating between types of Parkinsonisms.

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.