| Title |
A dual tracer 68Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT pilot study for detection of cardiac sarcoidosis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
EJNMMI Research, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13550-016-0207-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lars C. Gormsen, Ate Haraldsen, Stine Kramer, Andre H. Dias, Won Yong Kim, Per Borghammer |
| Abstract |
Cardiac sarcoidosis (CS) is a potentially fatal condition lacking a single test with acceptable diagnostic accuracy. (18)F-FDG PET/CT has emerged as a promising imaging modality, but is challenged by physiological myocardial glucose uptake. An alternative tracer, (68)Ga-DOTANOC, binds to somatostatin receptors on inflammatory cells in sarcoid granulomas. We therefore aimed to conduct a proof-of-concept study using (68)Ga-DOTANOC to diagnose CS. In addition, we compared diagnostic accuracy and inter-observer variability of (68)Ga-DOTANOC vs. (18)F-FDG PET/CT. Nineteen patients (seven female) with suspected CS were prospectively recruited and dual tracer scanned within 7 days. PET images were reviewed by four expert readers for signs of CS and compared to the reference standard (Japanese ministry of Health and Welfare CS criteria). CS was diagnosed in 3/19 patients. By consensus, 11/19 (18)F-FDG scans and 0/19 (68)Ga-DOTANOC scans were rated as inconclusive. The sensitivity of (18)F-FDG PET for diagnosing CS was 33 %, specificity was 88 %, PPV was 33 %, NPV was 88 %, and diagnostic accuracy was 79 %. For (68)Ga-DOTANOC, accuracy was 100 %. Inter-observer agreement was poor for (18)F-FDG PET (Fleiss' combined kappa 0.27, NS) and significantly better for (68)Ga-DOTANOC (Fleiss' combined kappa 0.46, p = 0.001). Despite prolonged pre-scan fasting, a large proportion of (18)F-FDG PET/CT images were rated as inconclusive, resulting in low agreement among reviewers and correspondingly poor diagnostic accuracy. By contrast, (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT had excellent diagnostic accuracy with the caveat that inter-observer variability was still significant. Nevertheless, (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT looks very promising as an alternative CS PET tracer. Current Controlled Trials NCT01729169 . |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 52 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 13% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 12 | 23% |
| Unknown | 10 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 42% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Unknown | 15 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 September 2020.
All research outputs
#6,457,954
of 22,925,760 outputs
Outputs from EJNMMI Research
#113
of 558 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,271
of 352,811 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EJNMMI Research
#3
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,925,760 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 558 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 352,811 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.