IMR Press / JIN / Volume 24 / Issue 4 / DOI: 10.31083/JIN24440
Open Access Original Research
Correlation Analysis Between 3D and Plane DAT Binding Parameters of 11C-CFT PET/CT and the Clinical Characteristics of Patients with Parkinson’s Disease
Show Less
Affiliation
1 Department of Nuclear Medicine, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, 200092 Shanghai, China
2 Department of Radiology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, 250000 Jinan, Shandong, China
3 Department of Neurology, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, 200092 Shanghai, China
4 PET Center, Hua Shan Hospital, Fudan University, 200040 Shanghai, China
*Correspondence: liuzhenguo@xinhuamed.com.cn (Zhenguo Liu); wanghui@xinhuamed.com.cn (Hui Wang); yinyafu@xinhuamed.com.cn; yinyf-2001@163.com (Yafu Yin)
These authors contributed equally.
J. Integr. Neurosci. 2025, 24(4), 24440; https://doi.org/10.31083/JIN24440
Submitted: 3 May 2024 | Revised: 23 December 2024 | Accepted: 31 December 2024 | Published: 25 April 2025
Copyright: © 2025 The Author(s). Published by IMR Press.
This is an open access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Abstract
Objective:

The aim of this study was to investigate the correlation between dopamine transporter (DAT) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) and the clinical characteristics and rating scales of Parkinson’s disease (PD) patients. Additionally, we sought to assess the scientific validity and feasibility of integrating 3D-dopaminergic binding parameters into the clinical scoring system for PD.

Methods:

A total of 75 patients with PD who underwent 11C-methyl-N-2β-methyl ester-3β-(4-fluorophenyl) tropane (11C-CFT) PET/CT from April, 2019 to June, 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Clinical characteristics, including age, sex, and disease duration, as well as the modified Hoehn-Yahr (H-Y) scale, Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) parts II and III (II-III), and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores of PD patients during the corresponding time periods were collected. DAT binding parameters and their derived parameters based on plane and 3D images in the neostriatum were analyzed for consistency with plane and 3D parameters, and the correlation between DAT parameters and the clinical features of patients were assessed using SPSS software.

Results:

The DAT binding parameters derived from 3D images demonstrated good consistency with the plane parameters (p < 0.05). The asymmetry index (ai) of DAT binding parameters based on 3D and plane images showed good consistency in the anterior putamen (p < 0.05). The plane parameters of the anterior and posterior putamen were statistically correlated with the UPDRS II-III score and H-Y score of PD patients (p < 0.05), whereas those of the caudate nucleus were correlated with UPDRS II and MMSE scores. The 3D parameters in the neostriatum showed good statistical correlation with disease duration, UPDRS II-III score, H-Y score, and H-Y stage of PD patients (p < 0.05), and the ai was significantly correlated with MMSE score (p < 0.05). The 3D parameters in the putamen and posterior putamen exhibited significant statistical correlation with the UPDRS II-III score, H-Y score, and H-Y stage in PD patients (p < 0.05). The ai in the putamen showed statistical correlation with UPDRS III and MMSE scores, and the ai in the posterior putamen showed statistical correlation with UPDRS II score (p < 0.05).

Conclusions:

Quantitative parameters based on plane and 3D images of 11C-CFT PET/CT showed good consistency. Moreover, 3D parameters in the neostriatum had a stronger correlation with activities of daily living, UPDRS motor scores, disease severity and duration, and cognition compared with plane parameters in PD patients.

Keywords
Parkinson’s disease
11C-CFT
PET/CT
plane parameter
3D parameter
Funding
81974270/ National Nature Science Foundation of China
82472014/ National Nature Science Foundation of China
22Y11904100/ Shanghai Science and Technology Commission
Figures
Fig. 1.
Share
Back to top