Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • View or Listen to JNM Podcast
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
OtherLetter to the Editor

Reply: An Expert System for the Detection of Renal Obstruction

Ernest V. Garcia and Andrew Taylor
Journal of Nuclear Medicine August 2006, 47 (8) 1394a-1395;
Ernest V. Garcia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrew Taylor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

REPLY: We greatly appreciate the thoughtful comments made by Professors Piepsz and Ham regarding the patient example and initial validation of RENEX, our expert system for detection of renal obstruction. We agree that it would be ideal to further validate RENEX using gold standards and parameters widely accepted by the entire medical community to detect renal obstruction. Nevertheless, the role of expert systems is to properly transfer the knowledge of the experts in a specific domain (such as detection of renal obstruction) to a computer program so that others with less expertise may use it to assist them to perform at the level of the experts. As such, what we are validating is that RENEX will reach the same conclusions about renal obstruction as would be reached by a typical nuclear medicine expert—that is, how well the transfer of knowledge took place. Professors Piepsz and Ham state that “the diagnosis of renal obstruction is a matter of continuous controversy” and make the appeal that introduction of RENEX into clinical practice should be delayed until all controversies surrounding detection of renal obstruction are resolved, including agreement on a gold standard. Professional competence has been defined as the ability to manage ambiguous problems, tolerate uncertainty, and make decisions based on limited information (1), and nuclear medicine physicians with various levels of expertise perform and interpret thousands of diuresis renography studies every year while these issues persist. Should we then make the appeal that diuresis renography studies not be performed clinically until the controversies in interpretation raised by Professors Piepsz and Ham are resolved? We should not demand more of an expert system than we expect from our own human experts.

In regard to the interpretation of the clinical study, Professors Piepsz and Ham argue that it is difficult to accept that both kidneys have reduced function. The camera-based 99mTc-mercaptoacetytriglycine (MAG3) clearance was 83 mL/min/1.73 m2. The normal camera-based MAG3 clearance is 321 ± 71 mL/min/1.73 m2, which is comparable to the normal MAG3 clearance based on plasma samples, 302 ± 73 mL/min/1.73 m2 (2,3). MAG3 clearance decreases with age and is estimated to decrease by 3.77 mL/min/1.73 m2 after age 40 (3); consequently, an 88-y-old person would be expected to have a reduced MAG3 clearance of approximately 121 mL/min/1.73 m2. The reduction in parenchymal function is supported by the fact that the cortical 20-min/maximum-count ratios were elevated for both kidneys, 0.47 for the right and 0.74 for the left (normal values are 0.19 ± 0.07 and 0.19 ± 0.04 for the right and left kidneys, respectively (2)). The cortical 20-min/maximum-count ratios are displayed in an expanded review of quantitative data; this display was available to the experts but was not reproduced in the RENEX paper for reasons of space (4).

Uptake was asymmetric between the left (54%) and right (46%) kidneys but was within normal limits. After furosemide, obstruction was excluded in the left kidney primarily by the rapid washout of the tracer from the left collecting system, as can be appreciated by inspection of the images. Calculation of the pelvic time to half-maximum counts in the left kidney was based on the first 5 min because no pelvic activity was detected after 5 min. The right kidney was determined to be obstructed because it markedly retained tracer after furosemide; moreover, the function of the 2 kidneys was similar, indicating that the right kidney could have responded to furosemide just as the left kidney responded if the right kidney had not been obstructed.

Neither the experts nor RENEX was aware of clinical data other than the sex, age, height, weight, and the fact that the patient was referred for suspected obstruction. (In the future, we plan to enhance the design of RENEX to incorporate clinical data.) We reviewed the clinical history and course of the patient. The patient presented with a 13.6-kg (30-lb) weight loss, an abdominal wall abscess, and a right upper quadrant mass. Her serum creatinine level was 1.1 mg/dL. Although this is a normal value, she had reduced muscle mass secondary to her weight loss, and serum creatinine may remain normal even when the glomerular filtration rate is reduced by as much as 60% (5). A CT scan showed a large pelvic mass suggestive of uterine leiomyosarcoma, a large necrotic right upper quadrant mass, and an abdominal wall abscess. Biopsy of the right upper quadrant mass revealed adenocarcinoma. A MAG3 scan was obtained because of concern regarding the patient's renal status. The MAG3 scan was interpreted as showing obstruction of the right kidney; a urology consult was obtained and a stent placed in the right ureter. At the completion of her hospital stay, the patient was discharged to hospice care.

Finally, Professors Piepsz and Hamm argue that an expert system used for the diagnosis of renal obstruction “should be based and validated on 2 series of patients with hydronephrosis, 1 corresponding to a simple dilatation, without any further renal deterioration, and 1 in which the conservative attitude resulted in kidney damage.” If Professors Piepsz and Hamm (or other investigators) have such a series, we would be glad to collaborate with them on transferring the data and processing it using our system.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Schon DA. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York, NY: Basic Books; 1983.
  2. 2.↵
    Esteves FP, Taylor A, Manatunga A, Folks R, Krishnan M, Garcia EV. Normal values for camera-based MAG3 clearance, MAG3 curve parameters, excretory parameters and residual urine volume. AJR. In press.
  3. 3.↵
    Russell CD, Taylor AT, Dubovsky EV. Measurement of renal function with technetium-99m-MAG3 in children and adults. J Nucl Med. 1996;37:588–593.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    Garcia EV, Taylor A, Halkar R, et al. RENEX: an expert system for the interpretation of 99mTc-MAG3 scans to detect renal obstruction. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:320–329.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    Levey AS, Madaio MP, Perrone RD. Laboratory assessment of renal disease: clearance, urinalysis and renal biopsy. In: Bremner BM, Rector FC Jr, eds. The Kidney. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders; 1991:919–937.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 47 (8)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 47, Issue 8
August 2006
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Reply: An Expert System for the Detection of Renal Obstruction
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Reply: An Expert System for the Detection of Renal Obstruction
Ernest V. Garcia, Andrew Taylor
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Aug 2006, 47 (8) 1394a-1395;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Reply: An Expert System for the Detection of Renal Obstruction
Ernest V. Garcia, Andrew Taylor
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Aug 2006, 47 (8) 1394a-1395;
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Reply to “The Value of Functional PET in Quantifying Neurotransmitter Dynamics”
  • Reply to “The Randomized, Phase 2 LuCAP Study”
  • Maintaining the Evidence for In Vivo Brain Estrogen Receptor Density by Neuroendocrine Aging and Relationships with Cognition and Symptomatology
Show more Letter to the Editor

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire