Annals of Nuclear Medicine

, Volume 33, Issue 6, pp 434–443 | Cite as

123I-FP-CIT striatal binding ratios do not decrease significantly with age in older adults

  • Gemma RobertsEmail author
  • James J. Lloyd
  • George S. Petrides
  • Paul C. Donaghy
  • Joseph P. M. Kane
  • Rory Durcan
  • Sarah Lawley
  • Kim Howe
  • Andrew J. Sims
  • John-Paul Taylor
  • John T. O’Brien
  • Alan J. Thomas
Original Article



I-123-2β-Carbomethoxy-3β-(4-iodophenyl)-N-(3-fluoropropyl)nortropane (FP-CIT) imaging is an established biomarker used in the diagnosis of Lewy body disease. Images are often reported with the aid of striatal binding ratios (SBRs), comparing uptake to a normal database via Z scores. It is well known that SBRs are age dependent. However, previous studies cover wide age ranges between 20 and 80 years, rather than focusing on older adults. Typically a linear relationship is reported, but some authors have suggested that SBRs do not decline as rapidly in old age. Commercial software packages usually adjust the SBR Z score to attempt to compensate for age-related decline, but the model used varies. Ensuring age correction is appropriate for older adults is important, given that the majority of patients referred for FP-CIT scans are aged over 60 years. We examined the relationship of SBR with age in older adults and the effect of age correction using research scans from 123 adults over 60 years of age.


Twenty-nine healthy older adults and twenty-three with MCI due to Alzheimer’s disease were included as controls, i.e. individuals with no evidence of Lewy body disease. Their ages ranged from 60 to 92 years (mean 76; SD 7.9). SBRs and Z scores were calculated using BRASS (Hermes Medical) and DaTQUANT (GE Healthcare). SBRs were plotted against age and linear mixed effect models applied. We tested the effect of removing age correction in BRASS using an independent dataset of 71 older adults with dementia or mild cognitive impairment.


The slopes of the linear fits between SBR and age per year were − 0.007 (p = 0.30) with BRASS and − 0.004 (p = 0.35) with DaTQUANT. The slopes are smaller than reported in the literature and show no statistically significant difference from zero. Switching age correction off in BRASS in the test subjects reduced Z scores by approximately 1 standard deviation at 80 years of age.


We found no statistically significant age-related decline in SBR in adults over 60 years of age without Lewy body disease. Commercial software packages that apply a fixed rate of age correction may be overcorrecting for age in older adults, which could contribute to misdiagnosis.


FP-CIT DaTSCAN SBR Age dependency Lewy body disease 



The authors would like to thank Miss Helen Kain, Research Support Secretary (Newcastle University Institute of Neuroscience) and our colleagues in the Nuclear Medicine department at the Newcastle Royal Victoria Infirmary. We thank the Alzheimer’s Society for supporting the Fellowship of the lead author and the NIHR and Alzheimer’s Research UK for supporting the clinical research studies used in this project. We are grateful to Liz Clarke (GE Healthcare) and Helena McMeekin (Hermes Medical) for providing information on DaTQUANT and BRASS, respectively.


The lead author is receiving full-time support from the Alzheimer’s Society via a Clinical Training Fellowship. The clinical studies used in this project were funded by Alzheimer’s Research UK and the Newcastle National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre, hosted by Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Newcastle University.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

123I-FP-CIT radiopharmaceutical and the DaTQUANT software package were provided by GE Healthcare. We have no other conflicts of interest relevant to this study.

Supplementary material

12149_2019_1352_MOESM1_ESM.docx (25 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 25 KB)


  1. 1.
    McKeith IG, et al. Diagnosis and management of dementia with Lewy bodies: Fourth consensus report of the DLB Consortium. Neurology. 2017;89(1):88–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Koch W, et al. Clinical testing of an optimized software solution for an automated, observer independent evaluation of dopamine transporter SPECT studies. J Nucl Med. 2005;46(7):10.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Calvini P, et al. The basal ganglia matching tools package for striatal uptake semi-quantification: description and validation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34(8):1240–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nobili F, et al. Automatic semi-quantification of [123I]FP-CIT SPECT scans in healthy volunteers using BasGan version 2: results from the ENC-DAT database. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40(4):565–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pencharz DR, et al. Automated quantification with BRASS reduces equivocal reporting of DaTSCAN (123I-FP-CIT) SPECT studies. Nucl Med Rev Cent East Eur. 2014;17(2):65–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Varrone A, et al. European multicentre database of healthy controls for [123I]FP-CIT SPECT (ENC-DAT): age-related effects, gender differences and evaluation of different methods of analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40(2):213–27 (15).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Booij J, et al. Diagnostic performance of the visual reading of (123)I-Ioflupane SPECT images with or without quantification in patients with movement disorders or dementia. J Nucl Med. 2017;58(11):1821–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Karrer TM, et al. Reduced dopamine receptors and transporters but not synthesis capacity in normal aging adults: a meta-analysis. Neurobiol Aging. 2017;57:36–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    van Dyck CH, et al. Age-related decline in dopamine transporters: analysis of striatal subregions, nonlinear effects, and hemispheric asymmetries. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2002;10(1):36–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Matsuda H, et al. Japanese multicenter database of healthy controls for [(123)I]FP-CIT SPECT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45(8):1405–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koch W, et al. Extended studies of the striatal uptake of 99mTc-NC100697 in healthy volunteers. J Nucl Med. 2007;48(1):27–34.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koch W, et al. Extrastriatal binding of [(1)(2)(3)I]FP-CIT in the thalamus and pons: gender and age dependencies assessed in a European multicentre database of healthy controls. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41(10):1938–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    The Parkinson Progression Marker Initiative (PPMI). Prog Neurobiol. 2011;95(4):629–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Albert MS, et al. The diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment 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(3):270–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thomas AJ, et al., Diagnostic accuracy of dopaminergic imaging in prodromal dementia with Lewy bodies. Psychol Med. 2018;49:1–7.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Donaghy PC, et al. Neuropsychiatric symptoms and cognitive profile in mild cognitive impairment with Lewy bodies. Psychol Med. 2018;48(14):2384–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thomas AJ, et al. Autopsy validation of 123I-FP-CIT dopaminergic neuroimaging for the diagnosis of DLB. Neurology. 2017;88(3):276–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McKeith I, et al., Sensitivity and specificity of dopamine transporter imaging with (123)I-FP-CIT SPECT in dementia with Lewy bodies: a phase III, multicentre study. Lancet Neurol 2007;6:305–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McKeith I, et al. Predictive accuracy of clinical diagnostic criteria for dementia with Lewy bodies: a prospective neuropathological validation study. Neurology. 2000;54(54):1050–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Markesbery WR, et al. Lewy body pathology in normal elderly subjects. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2009;68(7):816–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kane JPM, et al. 123I-MIBG scintigraphy utility and cut-off value in a clinically representative dementia cohort. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2019. Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tossici-Bolt L, et al. Calibration of gamma camera systems for a multicentre European I-123-FP-CIT SPECT normal database. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38(8):1529–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Akahoshi M, et al. Attenuation and scatter correction in I-123 FP-CIT SPECT do not affect the clinical diagnosis of dopaminergic system neurodegeneration. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(45):e8484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dickson JC, Tossici-Bolt L, Sera T, Booij J, Ziebell M, Morbelli S, Assenbaum-Nan S, Vander Borght T, Pagani M, Kapucu OL, Hesse S, The impact of reconstruction and scanner characterisation on the diagnostic capability of a normal database for [(123)I]FP-CIT SPECT imaging. Ejnmmi Res. 2017;7(1):10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pinheiro JC, Bates DM, Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS. New York: Springer Science & Business Media; 2000. p. 528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yamamoto H, et al. Age-related effects and gender differences in Japanese healthy controls for [(123)I] FP-CIT SPECT. Ann Nucl Med. 2017;31(5):407–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tossici-Bolt L, et al. Quantification of [123I]FP-CIT SPECT brain images: an accurate technique for measurement of the specific binding ratio. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;33(12):1491–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gemma Roberts
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • James J. Lloyd
    • 1
    • 2
  • George S. Petrides
    • 2
  • Paul C. Donaghy
    • 1
  • Joseph P. M. Kane
    • 1
    • 3
  • Rory Durcan
    • 1
  • Sarah Lawley
    • 1
  • Kim Howe
    • 2
  • Andrew J. Sims
    • 4
    • 5
  • John-Paul Taylor
    • 1
  • John T. O’Brien
    • 1
    • 6
  • Alan J. Thomas
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of NeuroscienceNewcastle UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK
  2. 2.Nuclear Medicine Department, Royal Victoria InfirmaryNewcastle upon Tyne NHS Foundation Hospitals TrustNewcastle upon TyneUK
  3. 3.Centre for Public Health, Institute of Clinical SciencesQueen’s University BelfastBelfastUK
  4. 4.Northern Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering, Freeman HospitalNewcastle upon Tyne NHS Foundation Hospitals TrustNewcastle upon TyneUK
  5. 5.Institute of Cellular Medicine, Faculty of Medical ScienceNewcastle UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK
  6. 6.Department of PsychiatryUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations