Research ArticleCLINICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Extended Studies of the Striatal Uptake of 99mTc-NC100697 in Healthy Volunteers

Walter Koch, Oliver Pogarell, Gabriele Pöpperl, Julia Hornung, Christine Hamann, Franz-Josef Gildehaus, Klaus Seelos, Dewi Lewis, Antonella Favit and Klaus Tatsch
Journal of Nuclear Medicine January 2007, 48 (1) 27-34;

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • FIGURE 1. 
    FIGURE 1. 

    Example of time course of brain counts and image quality in 24.5-y-old female healthy participant after injection (p.i.) of 789 MBq 99mTc-NC100697.

  • FIGURE 2. 
    FIGURE 2. 

    Individual time course (decay corrected) of specific striatal binding (A), counts in striatal region (B, solid line) and counts in occipital reference region (B, dashed line), and group mean specific striatal binding (C), all based on manual 2D ROI approach.

  • FIGURE 3. 
    FIGURE 3. 

    Age dependency of specific striatal binding (based on automated 3D VOI evaluation method), fitted with broken-stick regression model (A), with linear (B, dashed line) and logarithmic regression models (B, solid line).

  • FIGURE 4. 
    FIGURE 4. 

    Profiles of age dependency of DAT binding in women (A) and in men (C). (B) Mean ± SD of DAT binding for each age cohort, where striatal binding in women is represented by dashed line and that of male subjects by solid line.

  • FIGURE 5. 
    FIGURE 5. 

    Example of subjects with high (A) and low (B) striatal binding. (C) Putamen-to-caudate ratios remained stable throughout the full age range.

Tables

  • TABLE 1

    Brain Counts at Different Time Points After Injection of Radiotracer

    Time after injection (h)nBrain counts (×106)
    0.5367.51 ± 1.01
    1.5405.61 ± 0.79
    3.0393.72 ± 0.66
    4.0402.97 ± 0.52
    6.0152.03 ± 0.32
    8.061.54 ± 0.39

    • Data are expressed as mean ± SD.

  • TABLE 2

    Correlation Between Manual 2D ROI, MRI-Based, and Automated 3D VOI Semiquantitative Evaluations

    Evaluation
    ParameterManual vs. automated (n = 80)Manual vs. MRI-based (n = 40)Automated vs. MRI-based (n = 40)
    R20.9340.8420.871
    Constant ± SE−0.120 ± 0.038−0.122 ± 0.1070.083 ± 0.083
    Slope ± SE1.115 ± 0.0341.228 ± 0.0861.040 ± 0.065
    Limits of agreement−0.12 to 0.12−0.19 to 0.19−0.18 to 0.18
    ICC0.9660.9160.932

    • R2, constant, and slope refer to a linear regression line. Limits of agreement (according to Bland and Altman (10)) and ICCs were calculated after correcting data for different slopes.

Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Bookmark this article

Jump to section