Nuclear medicine communications · 2011
Impact of 123I-FP-CIT (DaTSCAN) SPECT on the diagnosis and management of patients with dementia with Lewy bodies: a retrospective study.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kemp Paul M, Clyde Katie, Holmes Clive
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of imaging the presynaptic dopaminergic terminal using DaTSCAN single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) on the clinical diagnosis and subsequent management of patients with possible dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), who were referred for imaging.
METHODS: A retrospective case note study was undertaken, involving a series of consecutive patients who had undergone DaTSCAN SPECT 12-24 months earlier.
RESULTS: Case notes of 80 patients were reviewed. DaTSCAN imaging results were abnormal (indicating DLB) in 20 (25%) and normal (suggesting an alternative diagnosis or absence of disease) in 60 (75%) patients. Of the 20 patients with an abnormal scan, 18 had a postscan working clinical diagnosis of DLB (90%), one had diagnosis of vascular dementia (5%) and another had no recorded outcome (5%). Fifty-eight out of the 60 patients with a normal DaTSCAN image result had an alternative clinical diagnosis of DLB (95%). Consequently, DaTSCAN findings were concordant with the outcome clinical diagnosis in 76 out of the 80 (95%) cases. Subsequent to DaTSCAN SPECT, scan findings and diagnoses were discussed with patients and/or their carers in 94% of cases and subsequent treatment options discussed in 93% of cases.
CONCLUSION: It would seem that DaTSCAN imaging has a marked influence on the working clinical diagnosis and subsequent management of patients with suspected DLB.
METHODS: A retrospective case note study was undertaken, involving a series of consecutive patients who had undergone DaTSCAN SPECT 12-24 months earlier.
RESULTS: Case notes of 80 patients were reviewed. DaTSCAN imaging results were abnormal (indicating DLB) in 20 (25%) and normal (suggesting an alternative diagnosis or absence of disease) in 60 (75%) patients. Of the 20 patients with an abnormal scan, 18 had a postscan working clinical diagnosis of DLB (90%), one had diagnosis of vascular dementia (5%) and another had no recorded outcome (5%). Fifty-eight out of the 60 patients with a normal DaTSCAN image result had an alternative clinical diagnosis of DLB (95%). Consequently, DaTSCAN findings were concordant with the outcome clinical diagnosis in 76 out of the 80 (95%) cases. Subsequent to DaTSCAN SPECT, scan findings and diagnoses were discussed with patients and/or their carers in 94% of cases and subsequent treatment options discussed in 93% of cases.
CONCLUSION: It would seem that DaTSCAN imaging has a marked influence on the working clinical diagnosis and subsequent management of patients with suspected DLB.