Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 5/2017

01-05-2017 | 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

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

Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Issue 5/2017

Login to get access

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.
Literature
1.
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
2.
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
3.
4.
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
5.
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
6.
7.
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
8.
9.
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.
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
Metadata
Title
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
Authors
Tomohiko Yamane
Kenji Ishii
Muneyuki Sakata
Yasuhiko Ikari
Tomoyuki Nishio
Kazunari Ishii
Takashi Kato
Kengo Ito
Michio Senda
J-ADNI Study Group
Publication date
01-05-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Issue 5/2017
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Electronic ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3591-2

Other articles of this Issue 5/2017

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 5/2017 Go to the issue

Editorial Commentary

Less is more: reconsidering the need for regular use of diagnostic whole body radioiodine scintigraphy in the follow-up of differentiated thyroid cancer

Book Review

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

Book Review

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

Original Article

Myocardial blood flow and left ventricular functional reserve in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: a 13NH3 gated PET study

Original Article

Nodal parameters of FDG PET/CT performed during radiotherapy for locally advanced mucosal primary head and neck squamous cell carcinoma can predict treatment outcomes: SUVmean and response rate are useful imaging biomarkers

Original Article

Early dynamic imaging in 68Ga- PSMA-11 PET/CT allows discrimination of urinary bladder activity and prostate cancer lesions