Optimal DaTQUANT Thresholds for Diagnostic Accuracy of Dementia with Lewy Bodies (DLB) and Parkinson’s Disease (PD)
Résumé fourni par la source
Background: Quantitative thresholds are helpful to define an abnormal DaT SPECT in patients with suspected nigrostriatal degenerative diseases (NSDD). The optimal DaTQUANT threshold for diagnostic accuracy of DaT SPECT across combined movement and cognitive disorder populations has been previously described. Methods: We established optimal DaTQUANT thresholds that enhance the discrimination between dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and non-DLB dementia types, as well as between Parkinsonian syndromes (PS) and conditions not characterized by nigrostriatal degeneration (non-PS). Results: Data from a total of 303 patients were used in this retrospective analysis. Posterior putamen of the more affected hemisphere (MAH) was shown to be an accurate single-variable predictor for both DLB and PS and was comparable to the most accurate multi-variable models. Conclusions: Automated quantification with DaTQUANT can accurately aid in the differentiation of DLB from non-DLB dementias and PS from non-PS. Optimal thresholds for assisting a diagnosis of DLB are striatal binding ratio (SBR) ≤ 0.65, z-score ≤ −2.36, and a percent deviation ≤ −0.54 for the posterior putamen of the MAH. Optimal posterior putamen thresholds for assisting a diagnosis of PS are SBR ≤ 0.92, z-score ≤ −1.53, and a percent deviation ≤ −0.33, which are similar to our previously reported posterior putamen threshold values using a blended patient pool from multiple study populations.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Optimal DaTQUANT Thresholds for Diagnostic Accuracy of Dementia with Lewy Bodies (DLB) and Parkinson’s Disease (PD)
- Date Crossref
- 09/10/2024
- Éditeur
- MDPI AG
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.