Clinical correlation of the binding potential with 123I-FP-CIT in de novo idiopathic Parkinson’s disease patients
- 134 Downloads
The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of different single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) reconstruction techniques in measuring striatal N-ω-fluoropropyl-2β-carbomethoxy-3β-4-[123I]iodophenyl-nortropane (123I-FP-CIT) binding in de novo Parkinson’s disease (PD) patients, in order to find a correlation with clinical scales of disease severity in the initial phases of disease.
Thirty-six de novo PD patients underwent 123I-FP-CIT SPECT and MRI scan. SPECT data were reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP), with an iterative algorithm (ordered subset expected maximization, OSEM) and with a method previously developed in our institution, called least-squares (LS) method. The ratio of specific to non-specific striatal 123I-FP-CIT binding (binding potential, BP) was used as the outcome measure with all the reconstruction methods (BPFBP, BPOSEM, BPLS).
The range of values of striatal BPLS was significantly greater than BPFBP and BPOSEM. For all striatal regions, estimates of BPFBP correlated well with BPOSEM (r = 0.84) and with BPLS (r = 0.64); BPOSEM correlated significantly with BPLS (r = 0.76). A good correlation was found between putaminal BPLS and Hoen and Yahr, Unified PD Rating Scale (UPDRS) and lateralized UPDRS motor scores (r = −0.46, r = −0.42, r = −0.39, respectively). Neither putaminal BPFBP nor putaminal BPOSEM correlated with any of these motor scores.
In de novo PD patients, 123I-FP-CIT BP values derived from FBP and OSEM reconstruction techniques do not permit to differentiate PD severity. The LS method instead finds a correlation between striatal BP and disease severity scores. The results of this study support the use of 123I-FP-CIT BP values estimated with the LS method as a biomarker of PD severity.
Keywords123I-FP-CIT Binding potential Parkinson’s disease Severity Biomarker
- 26.Fahn S, Elton RL, and members of the UPDRS Development Committee. Unified Parkinson’s disease rating scale. In: Fahn S, Marsden CD, Calne DB, Goldstein M, editors. Recent development in Parkinson’s disease. Florham Park, HJ: Macmillan Healthcare Information; 1987. p. 153–64.Google Scholar
- 29.National Institutes of Health. Medical image processing, analysis and visualization. www.mipav.cit.nih.gov (as achieved in January 24th, 2008)
- 30.McAuliffe MJ, Lalonde D, McGarry D, Gandler W, Csaky K, Trus BL. Medical image processing, analysis and visualization in clinical research. In: CBMS’01: 2001 Proceedings of the IEEE Computer-based Medical Systems, Bethesda, MD, p. 381.Google Scholar
- 34.Brucke T, Asenbaum S, Pirker W, Djamshidian S, Wenger S, Wober C, et al. Measurement of the dopaminergic degeneration in Parkinson’s disease with [123I]β-CIT and SPECT. Correlation with clinical findings and comparison with multiple system atrophy and progressive supranuclear palsy. J Neural Transm 1997;50(Suppl):9–24.Google Scholar