nach oben

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Erschienen in:

13.12.2016 | Original Article

Inter-rater variability of visual interpretation and comparison with quantitative evaluation of ¹¹C-PiB PET amyloid images of the Japanese Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (J-ADNI) multicenter study

verfasst von: Tomohiko Yamane, Kenji Ishii, Muneyuki Sakata, Yasuhiko Ikari, Tomoyuki Nishio, Kazunari Ishii, Takashi Kato, Kengo Ito, Michio Senda, J-ADNI Study Group

Erschienen in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Ausgabe 5/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to assess the inter-rater variability of the visual interpretation of ¹¹C-PiB PET images regarding the positivity/negativity of amyloid deposition that were obtained in a multicenter clinical research project, Japanese Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (J-ADNI). The results of visual interpretation were also compared with a semi-automatic quantitative analysis using mean cortical standardized uptake value ratio to the cerebellar cortex (mcSUVR).

Methods

A total of 162 ¹¹C-PiB PET scans, including 45 mild Alzheimer’s disease, 60 mild cognitive impairment, and 57 normal cognitive control cases that had been acquired as J-ADNI baseline scans were analyzed. Based on visual interpretation by three independent raters followed by consensus read, each case was classified into positive, equivocal, and negative deposition (ternary criteria) and further dichotomized by merging the former two (binary criteria).

Results

Complete agreement of visual interpretation by the three raters was observed for 91.3% of the cases (Cohen κ = 0.88 on average) in ternary criteria and for 92.3% (κ = 0.89) in binary criteria. Cases that were interpreted as visually positive in the consensus read showed significantly higher mcSUVR than those visually negative (2.21 ± 0.37 vs. 1.27 ± 0.09, p < 0.001), and positive or negative decision by visual interpretation was dichotomized by a cut-off value of mcSUVR = 1.5. Significant positive/negative associations were observed between mcSUVR and the number of raters who evaluated as positive (ρ = 0.87, p < 0.0001) and negative (ρ = −0.85, p < 0.0001) interpretation. Cases of disagreement among raters showed generally low mcSUVR.

Conclusions

Inter-rater agreement was almost perfect in ¹¹C-PiB PET scans. Positive or negative decision by visual interpretation was dichotomized by a cut-off value of mcSUVR = 1.5. As some cases of disagreement among raters tended to show low mcSUVR, referring to quantitative method may facilitate correct diagnosis when evaluating images of low amyloid deposition.

McKhann GM, Knopman DS, Chertkow H, Hyman BT, Jack Jr CR, Kawas CH, et al. The diagnosis of dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement. 2011;7:263–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Karran E, Mercken M, De Strooper B. The amyloid cascade hypothesis for Alzheimer’s disease: an appraisal for the development of therapeutics. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10:698–712.CrossRefPubMed

Jack Jr CR, Knopman DS, Jagust WJ, Shaw LM, Aisen PS, Weiner MW, et al. Hypothetical model of dynamic biomarkers of the Alzheimer’s pathological cascade. Lancet Neurol. 2010;9:119–28. doi:10.1016/S474-4422(09)70299-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Klunk W, Engler H, Nordberg A, Wang Y, Blomqvist G, Holt D, et al. Imaging brain amyloid in Alzheimer’s disease with Pittsburgh Compound-B. Ann Neurol. 2004;55:306–19.CrossRefPubMed

Klunk WE, Koeppe RA, Price JC, Benzinger TL, Devous Sr MD, Jagust WJ, et al. The Centiloid Project: standardizing quantitative amyloid plaque estimation by PET. Alzheimers Dement. 2015;11:1–15.CrossRefPubMed

Sabri O, Seibyl J, Rowe C, Barthel H. Beta-amyloid imaging with florbetaben. Clin Transl Imaging. 2015;3:13–26.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Curtis C, Gamez JE, Singh U, Sadowsky CH, Villena T, Sabbagh MN, et al. Phase 3 trial of flutemetamol labeled with radioactive fluorine 18 imaging and neuritic plaque density. JAMA Neurol. 2015;72:287–94.CrossRefPubMed

Yang L, Rieves D, Ganley C. Brain amyloid imaging—FDA approval of florbetapir F18 injection. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:885–7. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1208061.CrossRefPubMed

Hatashita S, Yamasaki H, Suzuki Y, Tanaka K, Wakebe D, Hayakawa H. [18F]Flutemetamol amyloid-beta PET imaging compared with [11C]PIB across the spectrum of Alzheimer’s disease. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:290–300.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Rabinovici G, Rosen H, Alkalay A, Kornak J, Furst A, Agarwal N, et al. Amyloid vs. FDG-PET in the differential diagnosis of AD and FTLD. Neurology. 2011;77:2034–42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Ng S, Villemagne VL, Berlangieri S, Lee ST, Cherk M, Gong SJ, et al. Visual assessment versus quantitative assessment of 11C-PIB PET and 18F-FDG PET for detection of Alzheimer’s disease. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:547–52.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Rosario BL, Weissfeld LA, Laymon CM, Mathis CA, Klunk WE, Berginc MD, et al. Inter-rater reliability of manual and automated region-of-interest delineation for PiB PET. Neuroimage. 2011;55:933–41.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Akamatsu G, Ikari Y, Ohnishi A, Nishida H, Aita K, Sasaki M, et al. Automated PET-only quantification of amyloid deposition with adaptive template and empirically pre-defined ROI. Phys Med Biol. 2016;61:5768–80.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Suotunen T, Hirvonen J, Immonen-Raiha P, Aalto S, Lisinen I, Arponen E, et al. Visual assessment of [(11)C]PIB PET in patients with cognitive impairment. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:1141–7.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Tolboom N, van der Flier WM, Boverhoff J, Yaqub M, Wattjes MP, Raijmakers PG, et al. Molecular imaging in the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: visual assessment of [11C]PIB and [18F]FDDNP PET images. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2010;81:882–4.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Seibyl J, Catafau AM, Barthel H, Ishii K, Rowe CC, Leverenz JB, et al. Impact of training method on the robustness of the visual assessment of 18F-Florbetaben PET scans: results from a phase-3 study. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:900–6.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Nayate AP, Dubroff JG, Schmitt JE, Nasrallah I, Kishore R, Mankoff D, et al. Use of standardized uptake value ratios decreases interreader variability of [18F] Florbetapir PET brain scan interpretation. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015;36:1237–44.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Yamane T, Ikari Y, Nishio T, Ishii K, Ishii K, Kato T, et al. Visual-statistical interpretation of (18)F-FDG-PET images for characteristic Alzheimer patterns in a multicenter study: inter-rater concordance and relationship to automated quantitative evaluation. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014;35:244–9.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Clark CM, Pontecorvo MJ, Beach TG, Bedell BJ, Coleman RE, Doraiswamy PM, et al. Cerebral PET with florbetapir compared with neuropathology at autopsy for detection of neuritic amyloid-β plaques: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Neurol. 2012;11:669–78.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Tolboom N, van der Flier WM, Yaqub M, Koene T, Boellaard R, Windhorst AD, et al. Differential association of [11C]PIB and [18F]FDDNP binding with cognitive impairment. Neurology. 2009;73:2079–85.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Grimmer T, Wutz C, Alexopoulos P, Drzezga A, Forster S, Forstl H, et al. Visual versus fully automated analyses of 18F-FDG and Amyloid PET for prediction of dementia due to Alzheimer disease in mild cognitive impairment. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:204–7.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Iwatsubo T. Japanese Alzheimer’s disease neuroimaging initiative: present status and future. Alzheimers Dement. 2010;6:297–9.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Ikari Y, Nishio T, Makishi Y, Miya Y, Ito K, Koeppe RA, et al. Head motion evaluation and correction for PET scans with 18F-FDG in the Japanese Alzheimer’s disease neuroimaging initiative (J-ADNI) multi-center study. Ann Nucl Med. 2012;26:535–44.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Japanese Alzheimer’s disease neuroimaging initiative (J-ADNI) (NBDC Research ID: hum0043.v1). National Bioscience Database Center website. http://humandbs.biosciencedbc.jp/en/hum0043-v1.

25.

McKhann G, Drachman D, Folstein M, Katzman R, Price D, Stadlan E. Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: report of the NINCDS-ADRDA Work Group under the auspices of Department of Health and Human Services Task Force on Alzheimer’s Disease. Neurology. 1984;34:939–44.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Braak H, Braak E. Frequency of stages of Alzheimer-related lesions in different age categories. Neurobiol Aging. 1997;18:351–7.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Delacourte A, David JP, Sergeant N, Buee L, Wattez A, Vermersch P, et al. The biochemical pathway of neurofibrillary degeneration in aging and Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology. 1999;52:1158–65.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Thurfjell L, Lilja J, Lundqvist R, Buckley C, Smith A, Vandenberghe R, et al. Automated quantification of 18F-flutemetamol PET activity for categorizing scans as negative or positive for brain amyloid: concordance with visual image reads. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:1623–8.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Schreiber S, Landau SM, Fero A, Schreiber F, Jagust WJ. Alzheimer’s disease neuroimaging I. Comparison of visual and quantitative Florbetapir F 18 positron emission tomography analysis in predicting mild cognitive impairment outcomes. JAMA Neurol. 2015;72:1183–90.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Chen ML. Ethnic or racial differences revisited: impact of dosage regimen and dosage form on pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2006;45:957–64.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Senda M, Yamamoto Y, Sasaki M, Yamane T, Brooks DJ, Farrar G, et al. An exploratory efficacy study of the amyloid imaging agent [(18)F]flutemetamol in Japanese Subjects. Ann Nucl Med. 2015;29:391–9.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Senda M, Sasaki M, Yamane T, Shimizu K, Patt M, Barthel H, et al. Ethnic comparison of pharmacokinetics of (18)F-florbetaben, a PET tracer for beta-amyloid imaging, in healthy Caucasian and Japanese subjects. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:89–96.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Inter-rater variability of visual interpretation and comparison with quantitative evaluation of 11C-PiB PET amyloid images of the Japanese Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (J-ADNI) multicenter study
verfasst von: Tomohiko Yamane
Kenji Ishii
Muneyuki Sakata
Yasuhiko Ikari
Tomoyuki Nishio
Kazunari Ishii
Takashi Kato
Kengo Ito
Michio Senda
J-ADNI Study Group
Publikationsdatum: 13.12.2016
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Ausgabe 5/2017
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Elektronische ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3591-2

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2017

Left ventricular function in response to dipyridamole stress: head-to-head comparison between 82Rubidium PET and 99mTc-sestamibi SPECT ECG-gated myocardial perfusion imaging

Ken Hermann, Omgo E. Neiweg and Stephen P. Povoski (eds): Radioguided Surgery. Current Applications and Innovative Directions in Clinical Practice

Quantitation of PET signal as an adjunct to visual interpretation of florbetapir imaging

Total lesion glycolysis (TLG) as an imaging biomarker in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with regorafenib

Andrea Ciarmiello and Luigi Mansi (eds): PET/CT and PET/MRI in neurology. SWOT analysis applied to hybrid imaging

Radionuclide imaging of subendocardial ischaemia: an insight into coronary pathophysiology or a technical artefact?