Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Quantification of dopamine transporter (DAT) with [18F]FE-PE2I PET is an important progression marker for Parkinson's disease (PD). This study aimed to validate a novel correction (SUVRc) for a less-biased estimate of SUVR by accounting for [18F]FE-PE2I clearance-rate, in independent cross-sectional (38 PD, 38 controls), test-retest (9 PD) and longitudinal cohorts (21 PD). SUVRc was calculated as SUVR1 - βrefk2,ref +βtarSUVRk2,refR1. βtar and βref are the clearance rates from the target and reference tissues. Bias relative to DVR, discriminative power, test-retest variability (TRV) and annual longitudinal change (ALC) were used to compare SUVR50-80 min, SUVRc50-80 min, SUVR15-45 min and DVR. SUVR50-80 min showed high bias across all regions (HC: mean: 48.31 ± 20.49% [range: 28.32-53.80%]; PD: 29.91 ± 13.95% [20.45-39.80%]) that was corrected by SUVRc50-80 min (HC: -0.80 ± 12.72% [-9.69-11.64%]; PD: -0.13 ± 7.41% [-5.04-2.97%]), p 0.001 for both groups compared to mean bias of SUVR50-80 min, similar to SUVR15-45 min. For the striatum, Cohen's d was similar for all measures. TRV were 3.2 ± 2.5% (DVR), 6.4 ± 5.7% (SUVR50-80 min), 6.8 ± 5.9% (SUVRc50-80 min) and 3.9 ± 3.2% (SUVR15-45 min). Higher TRV of SUVRc50-80 min was due to TRV of 9.2 ± 5.1% [1.1-19.4] for βtar. ALC was 4.5 ± 4.2% (DVR), 5.2 ± 6.5% (SUVR50-80 min), 4.4 ± 4.1% (SUVRc50-80 min) and 4.2 ± 4.1% (SUVR15-45 min). SUVRc50-80 min reduced bias compared to SUVR50-80 min, as previously reported. SUVRc50-80 min was sensitive to small changes of βtar, with higher TRV compared to DVR, but with similar ALC, suggesting that it can reliably assess longitudinal DAT changes.
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.