Abstract
We investigated diagnostic characteristics of spatial covariance analysis (SCA) of FDG-PET and HMPAO-SPECT scans in the differential diagnosis of dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and Alzheimer’s disease (AD), in comparison with visual ratings and region of interest (ROI) analysis. Sixty-seven patients (DLB 29, AD 38) had both HMPAO-SPECT and FDG-PET scans. Spatial covariance patterns were used to separate AD and DLB in an initial derivation group (DLB n=15, AD n=19), before being forward applied to an independent group (DLB n=14, AD n=19). Visual ratings were by consensus, with ROI analysis utilising medial occipital/medial temporal uptake ratios. SCA of HMPAO-SPECT performed poorly (AUC 0.59±0.10), whilst SCA of FDG-PET (AUC 0.83±0.07) was significantly better. For FDG-PET, SCA showed similar diagnostic performance to ROI analysis (AUC 0.84±0.08) and visual rating (AUC 0.82±0.08). In contrast to ROI analysis, there was little concordance between SCA and visual ratings of FDG-PET scans. We conclude that SCA of FDG-PET outperforms that of HMPAO-SPECT and performed similarly to other analytical approaches, with the potential to improve with larger derivation groups. Compared to visual rating, SCA of FDG-PET relies on different sources of group variance to separate DLB from AD.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This paper uses data from independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme (Grant Reference Number PB-PG-1207-13105).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Study approval was by Newcastle and North Tyneside 1 Research Ethics Committee (REF 09/H0906/88), and all participants (or nominated Independent Mental Capacity Advocate where participant lacked capacity) gave written informed consent.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data used in the present study are not routinely available.