TY - JOUR
T1 - Head-to-Head Comparison among Semi-Quantification Tools of Brain FDG-PET to Aid the Diagnosis of Prodromal Alzheimer's Disease
AU - Brugnolo, Andrea
AU - de Carli, Fabrizio
AU - Pagani, Marco
AU - Morbelli, Slivia
AU - Jonsson, Cathrine
AU - Chincarini, Andrea
AU - Frisoni, Giovanni B.
AU - Galluzzi, Samantha
AU - Perneczky, Robert
AU - Drzezga, Alexander
AU - van Berckel, Bart N. M.
AU - Ossenkoppele, Rik
AU - Didic, Mira
AU - Guedj, Eric
AU - Arnaldi, Dario
AU - Massa, Federico
AU - Grazzini, Matteo
AU - Pardini, Matteo
AU - Mecocci, Patrizia
AU - Dottorini, Massimo E.
AU - Bauckneht, Matteo
AU - Sambuceti, Gianmario
AU - Nobili, Flavio
N1 - Funding Information:
aDepartment of Neuroscience, Rehabilitation, Ophthalmology, Genetics, and Mother-Child health (DINOGMI), University of Genoa, Italy bClinical Psychology Unit, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy cInstitute of Bioimaging and Molecular Physiology, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR), Genoa, Italy dInstitute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR), Rome, Italy eDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Karolinska Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden fDepartment of Health Sciences (DISSAL), University of Genoa, Italy gNuclear Medicine Unit, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy hMedical Radiation Physics and Nuclear Medicine, Imaging and Physiology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden iNational Institute for Nuclear Physics (INFN), Genoa, Italy jLENITEM Laboratory of Epidemiology and Neuroimaging, IRCCS S. Giovanni di Dio-FBF, Brescia, Italy kUniversity Hospitals and University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland lDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Germany mDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany nGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE) Munich, Germany oNeuroepidemiology and Ageing Research Unit, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, The Imperial College London of Science, Technology and Medicine, London, UK pDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, Germany; previously at Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technische Universität, Munich, Germany qDepartment of Nuclear Medicine & PET Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands rAPHM, CHU Timone, Service de Neurologie et Neuropsychologie, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France sAPHM, CHU Timone, Service de Médecine Nucléaire, CERIMED, Institut Fresnel, CNRS, Ecole Centrale Marseille, Aix-Marseille University, France tNeurology Clinics, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 - IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved.
Copyright:
Copyright 2019 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2019/1/1
Y1 - 2019/1/1
N2 - Background: Several automatic tools have been implemented for semi-quantitative assessment of brain [ 18 ]F-FDG-PET. Objective: We aimed to head-to-head compare the diagnostic performance among three statistical parametric mapping (SPM)-based approaches, another voxel-based tool (i.e., PALZ), and a volumetric region of interest (VROI-SVM)-based approach, in distinguishing patients with prodromal Alzheimer's disease (pAD) from controls. Methods: Sixty-two pAD patients (MMSE score = 27.0±1.6) and one hundred-nine healthy subjects (CTR) (MMSE score = 29.2±1.2) were enrolled in five centers of the European Alzheimer's Disease Consortium. The three SPM-based methods, based on different rationales, included 1) a cluster identified through the correlation analysis between [ 18 ]F-FDG-PET and a verbal memory test (VROI-1), 2) a VROI derived from the comparison between pAD and CTR (VROI-2), and 3) visual analysis of individual maps obtained by the comparison between each subject and CTR (SPM-Maps). The VROI-SVM approach was based on 6 VROI plus 6 VROI asymmetry values derived from the pAD versus CTR comparison thanks to support vector machine (SVM). Results: The areas under the ROC curves between pAD and CTR were 0.84 for VROI-1, 0.83 for VROI-2, 0.79 for SPM maps, 0.87 for PALZ, and 0.95 for VROI-SVM. Pairwise comparisons of Youden index did not show statistically significant differences in diagnostic performance between VROI-1, VROI-2, SPM-Maps, and PALZ score whereas VROI-SVM performed significantly (p < 0.005) better than any of the other methods. Conclusion: The study confirms the good accuracy of [ 18 ]F-FDG-PET in discriminating healthy subjects from pAD and highlights that a non-linear, automatic VROI classifier based on SVM performs better than the voxel-based methods.
AB - Background: Several automatic tools have been implemented for semi-quantitative assessment of brain [ 18 ]F-FDG-PET. Objective: We aimed to head-to-head compare the diagnostic performance among three statistical parametric mapping (SPM)-based approaches, another voxel-based tool (i.e., PALZ), and a volumetric region of interest (VROI-SVM)-based approach, in distinguishing patients with prodromal Alzheimer's disease (pAD) from controls. Methods: Sixty-two pAD patients (MMSE score = 27.0±1.6) and one hundred-nine healthy subjects (CTR) (MMSE score = 29.2±1.2) were enrolled in five centers of the European Alzheimer's Disease Consortium. The three SPM-based methods, based on different rationales, included 1) a cluster identified through the correlation analysis between [ 18 ]F-FDG-PET and a verbal memory test (VROI-1), 2) a VROI derived from the comparison between pAD and CTR (VROI-2), and 3) visual analysis of individual maps obtained by the comparison between each subject and CTR (SPM-Maps). The VROI-SVM approach was based on 6 VROI plus 6 VROI asymmetry values derived from the pAD versus CTR comparison thanks to support vector machine (SVM). Results: The areas under the ROC curves between pAD and CTR were 0.84 for VROI-1, 0.83 for VROI-2, 0.79 for SPM maps, 0.87 for PALZ, and 0.95 for VROI-SVM. Pairwise comparisons of Youden index did not show statistically significant differences in diagnostic performance between VROI-1, VROI-2, SPM-Maps, and PALZ score whereas VROI-SVM performed significantly (p < 0.005) better than any of the other methods. Conclusion: The study confirms the good accuracy of [ 18 ]F-FDG-PET in discriminating healthy subjects from pAD and highlights that a non-linear, automatic VROI classifier based on SVM performs better than the voxel-based methods.
KW - European Alzheimer Disease Consortium
KW - FDG-PET
KW - head-to-head comparison
KW - prodromal Alzheimer's disease
KW - statistical parametric mapping
KW - volumetric region of interest
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062885225&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3233/JAD-181022
DO - 10.3233/JAD-181022
M3 - Article
C2 - 30776000
VL - 68
SP - 383
EP - 394
JO - Journal of Alzheimer's Disease
JF - Journal of Alzheimer's Disease
SN - 1387-2877
IS - 1
ER -