应用厘体量表定量淀粉样蛋白PET在临床中的附加价值。

Akarsh Vijayashankar, Graham Keir, Matthew Sagnelli, David Petrover, Mehdi Djekidel, Joseph Glaser, Chris Caravella, Sean A P Clouston, Josephine Rini, Ana M Franceschi
{"title":"应用厘体量表定量淀粉样蛋白PET在临床中的附加价值。","authors":"Akarsh Vijayashankar, Graham Keir, Matthew Sagnelli, David Petrover, Mehdi Djekidel, Joseph Glaser, Chris Caravella, Sean A P Clouston, Josephine Rini, Ana M Franceschi","doi":"10.3174/ajnr.A8850","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>The objectives for amyloid brain PET/CT and PET/MRI fusion images are to determine the agreement between visual interpretations of amyloid PET and to compare the results of visual interpretation with quantitative analysis as measured by the Centiloid (CL) scale.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>One hundred sixty-seven clinical amyloid brain PET/CT scans were reviewed by 3 readers blinded to the original reports. Readers interpreted the amyloid PET scans as negative (0), positive (1), or indeterminate (2) for amyloid deposition. For quantitative analysis, 2 additional readers analyzed amyloid PET images using MIMNeuro to generate CL scores and regional standardized uptake ratios. Reader agreement was determined for visual and quantitative assessment. Using positive scan cutoffs of CL ≥ 40, we determined visual assessment-versus-quantitative assessment for scans consistently interpreted as positive by all 3 readers and for each reader.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-three scans (31.74%) were rated amyloid-positive by all readers, while 62 scans (37.13%) were rated as amyloid-negative by all readers. The remaining 52 scans had inconsistent ratings with an agreement rate of 69.46%. Most (99/167; 59.28%) scans had CL scores above the CL-positive cutoff (CL ≥ 40), and 47/167 (28.14%) were CL-negative scans (CL <10). The lowest CL score to achieve visual positivity among all 3 readers was 57, while the lowest CL score to receive at least 1 indeterminate score was 11. The readers had a high degree of interreader reliability when rating scans as either positive (κ = 0.62) or negative (κ = 0.66) but were inconsistent when rating scans as indeterminate (κ = 0.17). Optimal cut-points were CL <3.6 for consistent negative and CL ≥28.8 for consistent visual positivity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Given the emergence of antiamyloid monoclonal therapies for early-stage Alzheimer disease, reliable detection of amyloidosis is critical for patient care. This study suggests that visual reads of amyloid PET may be insensitive when amyloidosis is milder but are spread across multiple regions (CL ranging from 40 to 59). Quantification of amyloid PET using the CL scale may help guide treatment of patients with mild amyloidosis who are under consideration for antiamyloid disease-modifying therapeutics.</p>","PeriodicalId":93863,"journal":{"name":"AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Added Value of Amyloid PET Quantification with the Centiloid Scale in Clinical Practice.\",\"authors\":\"Akarsh Vijayashankar, Graham Keir, Matthew Sagnelli, David Petrover, Mehdi Djekidel, Joseph Glaser, Chris Caravella, Sean A P Clouston, Josephine Rini, Ana M Franceschi\",\"doi\":\"10.3174/ajnr.A8850\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>The objectives for amyloid brain PET/CT and PET/MRI fusion images are to determine the agreement between visual interpretations of amyloid PET and to compare the results of visual interpretation with quantitative analysis as measured by the Centiloid (CL) scale.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>One hundred sixty-seven clinical amyloid brain PET/CT scans were reviewed by 3 readers blinded to the original reports. Readers interpreted the amyloid PET scans as negative (0), positive (1), or indeterminate (2) for amyloid deposition. For quantitative analysis, 2 additional readers analyzed amyloid PET images using MIMNeuro to generate CL scores and regional standardized uptake ratios. Reader agreement was determined for visual and quantitative assessment. Using positive scan cutoffs of CL ≥ 40, we determined visual assessment-versus-quantitative assessment for scans consistently interpreted as positive by all 3 readers and for each reader.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-three scans (31.74%) were rated amyloid-positive by all readers, while 62 scans (37.13%) were rated as amyloid-negative by all readers. The remaining 52 scans had inconsistent ratings with an agreement rate of 69.46%. Most (99/167; 59.28%) scans had CL scores above the CL-positive cutoff (CL ≥ 40), and 47/167 (28.14%) were CL-negative scans (CL <10). The lowest CL score to achieve visual positivity among all 3 readers was 57, while the lowest CL score to receive at least 1 indeterminate score was 11. The readers had a high degree of interreader reliability when rating scans as either positive (κ = 0.62) or negative (κ = 0.66) but were inconsistent when rating scans as indeterminate (κ = 0.17). Optimal cut-points were CL <3.6 for consistent negative and CL ≥28.8 for consistent visual positivity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Given the emergence of antiamyloid monoclonal therapies for early-stage Alzheimer disease, reliable detection of amyloidosis is critical for patient care. This study suggests that visual reads of amyloid PET may be insensitive when amyloidosis is milder but are spread across multiple regions (CL ranging from 40 to 59). Quantification of amyloid PET using the CL scale may help guide treatment of patients with mild amyloidosis who are under consideration for antiamyloid disease-modifying therapeutics.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93863,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A8850\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A8850","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:脑淀粉样蛋白PET/CT和PET/MRI融合图像的目的是确定淀粉样蛋白PET视觉解释之间的一致性,并将视觉解释结果与Centiloid (CL)量表测量的定量分析结果进行比较。材料和方法:对167例临床淀粉样蛋白脑PET/CT扫描结果进行回顾性分析。读者将淀粉样蛋白PET扫描解释为淀粉样蛋白沉积阴性(0)、阳性(1)或不确定(2)。为了进行定量分析,另外2名读者使用MIMNeuro分析淀粉样蛋白PET图像,以生成CL评分和区域标准化摄取比。确定读者同意进行视觉和定量评估。使用CL≥40的阳性扫描截止值,我们确定了视觉评估与定量评估对所有3个阅读器和每个阅读器一致解释为阳性的扫描。结果:53次扫描(31.74%)被所有读者评为淀粉样蛋白阳性,62次扫描(37.13%)被所有读者评为淀粉样蛋白阴性。其余52次扫描评分不一致,一致性率为69.46%。大多数(99/167;59.28%)扫描的CL评分高于CL阳性临界值(CL≥40),47/167(28.14%)扫描为CL阴性(CL结论:鉴于早期阿尔茨海默病抗淀粉样蛋白单克隆治疗的出现,淀粉样变性的可靠检测对患者护理至关重要。本研究表明,当淀粉样变性较轻但分布在多个区域时,淀粉样PET的视觉读数可能不敏感(CL范围从40到59)。使用CL量表量化淀粉样蛋白PET可能有助于指导正在考虑使用抗淀粉样蛋白疾病改善治疗的轻度淀粉样变性患者的治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Added Value of Amyloid PET Quantification with the Centiloid Scale in Clinical Practice.

Background and purpose: The objectives for amyloid brain PET/CT and PET/MRI fusion images are to determine the agreement between visual interpretations of amyloid PET and to compare the results of visual interpretation with quantitative analysis as measured by the Centiloid (CL) scale.

Materials and methods: One hundred sixty-seven clinical amyloid brain PET/CT scans were reviewed by 3 readers blinded to the original reports. Readers interpreted the amyloid PET scans as negative (0), positive (1), or indeterminate (2) for amyloid deposition. For quantitative analysis, 2 additional readers analyzed amyloid PET images using MIMNeuro to generate CL scores and regional standardized uptake ratios. Reader agreement was determined for visual and quantitative assessment. Using positive scan cutoffs of CL ≥ 40, we determined visual assessment-versus-quantitative assessment for scans consistently interpreted as positive by all 3 readers and for each reader.

Results: Fifty-three scans (31.74%) were rated amyloid-positive by all readers, while 62 scans (37.13%) were rated as amyloid-negative by all readers. The remaining 52 scans had inconsistent ratings with an agreement rate of 69.46%. Most (99/167; 59.28%) scans had CL scores above the CL-positive cutoff (CL ≥ 40), and 47/167 (28.14%) were CL-negative scans (CL <10). The lowest CL score to achieve visual positivity among all 3 readers was 57, while the lowest CL score to receive at least 1 indeterminate score was 11. The readers had a high degree of interreader reliability when rating scans as either positive (κ = 0.62) or negative (κ = 0.66) but were inconsistent when rating scans as indeterminate (κ = 0.17). Optimal cut-points were CL <3.6 for consistent negative and CL ≥28.8 for consistent visual positivity.

Conclusions: Given the emergence of antiamyloid monoclonal therapies for early-stage Alzheimer disease, reliable detection of amyloidosis is critical for patient care. This study suggests that visual reads of amyloid PET may be insensitive when amyloidosis is milder but are spread across multiple regions (CL ranging from 40 to 59). Quantification of amyloid PET using the CL scale may help guide treatment of patients with mild amyloidosis who are under consideration for antiamyloid disease-modifying therapeutics.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信