Comparison of quantitative analysis to qualitative analysis for interpretation of lower-limb lymphoscintigraphy

Qualitative analysis of lymphoscintigrams is subject to wide variability and may miss subtle differences in ilioinguinal uptake between normal and abnormal limbs. This study compared quantitative analysis to qualitative analysis of lower-limb lymphoscintigraphy in diagnosing lymphedema. Fifty-two ly...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Edward Chege Nganga, Khalid Makhdomi
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2019-01-01
Series:World Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.wjnm.org/article.asp?issn=1450-1147;year=2019;volume=18;issue=1;spage=36;epage=41;aulast=Nganga
id doaj-794fcf2a442c4ed1a93d79500efd7d9f
record_format Article
spelling doaj-794fcf2a442c4ed1a93d79500efd7d9f2020-11-25T00:50:35ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsWorld Journal of Nuclear Medicine1450-11472019-01-01181364110.4103/wjnm.WJNM_17_18Comparison of quantitative analysis to qualitative analysis for interpretation of lower-limb lymphoscintigraphyEdward Chege NgangaKhalid MakhdomiQualitative analysis of lymphoscintigrams is subject to wide variability and may miss subtle differences in ilioinguinal uptake between normal and abnormal limbs. This study compared quantitative analysis to qualitative analysis of lower-limb lymphoscintigraphy in diagnosing lymphedema. Fifty-two lymphoscintigrams performed using standardized protocol, 99-metastable technetium nanocolloid intradermal injection at the first interdigital space, were analyzed quantitatively. Fifty-three normal and 51 abnormal limbs were analyzed. For each limb, a region of interest (ROI) was drawn around the injection site, and ilioinguinal nodes on the 1.5 h static images and the counts in these ROIs were recorded. Percentage ilioinguinal nodes uptake was then computed. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to determine the difference in ilioinguinal uptake between normal and abnormal limbs. Specificity and sensitivity were calculated and the figures were used to plot a receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve. Thirty-six females and 16 males (104 limbs) were analyzed. ANOVA revealed a significant difference between the mean uptake in normal (19.7%) and abnormal limbs (5.5%) (F = 81, P < 0.001). ROC had a maximal area under the curve of 0.924 (P < 0.001). The significant difference in the means of ilioinguinal uptake between normal and lymphedema limbs infers reduced lymphatic function. Ilioinguinal lymph node uptake is thus a reliable parameter in quantitative analysis of lymphoscintigrams.http://www.wjnm.org/article.asp?issn=1450-1147;year=2019;volume=18;issue=1;spage=36;epage=41;aulast=NgangaLymphedemalymphoscintigraphynuclear medicinequalitative analysisquantitative analysis
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Edward Chege Nganga
Khalid Makhdomi
spellingShingle Edward Chege Nganga
Khalid Makhdomi
Comparison of quantitative analysis to qualitative analysis for interpretation of lower-limb lymphoscintigraphy
World Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Lymphedema
lymphoscintigraphy
nuclear medicine
qualitative analysis
quantitative analysis
author_facet Edward Chege Nganga
Khalid Makhdomi
author_sort Edward Chege Nganga
title Comparison of quantitative analysis to qualitative analysis for interpretation of lower-limb lymphoscintigraphy
title_short Comparison of quantitative analysis to qualitative analysis for interpretation of lower-limb lymphoscintigraphy
title_full Comparison of quantitative analysis to qualitative analysis for interpretation of lower-limb lymphoscintigraphy
title_fullStr Comparison of quantitative analysis to qualitative analysis for interpretation of lower-limb lymphoscintigraphy
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of quantitative analysis to qualitative analysis for interpretation of lower-limb lymphoscintigraphy
title_sort comparison of quantitative analysis to qualitative analysis for interpretation of lower-limb lymphoscintigraphy
publisher Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
series World Journal of Nuclear Medicine
issn 1450-1147
publishDate 2019-01-01
description Qualitative analysis of lymphoscintigrams is subject to wide variability and may miss subtle differences in ilioinguinal uptake between normal and abnormal limbs. This study compared quantitative analysis to qualitative analysis of lower-limb lymphoscintigraphy in diagnosing lymphedema. Fifty-two lymphoscintigrams performed using standardized protocol, 99-metastable technetium nanocolloid intradermal injection at the first interdigital space, were analyzed quantitatively. Fifty-three normal and 51 abnormal limbs were analyzed. For each limb, a region of interest (ROI) was drawn around the injection site, and ilioinguinal nodes on the 1.5 h static images and the counts in these ROIs were recorded. Percentage ilioinguinal nodes uptake was then computed. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to determine the difference in ilioinguinal uptake between normal and abnormal limbs. Specificity and sensitivity were calculated and the figures were used to plot a receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve. Thirty-six females and 16 males (104 limbs) were analyzed. ANOVA revealed a significant difference between the mean uptake in normal (19.7%) and abnormal limbs (5.5%) (F = 81, P < 0.001). ROC had a maximal area under the curve of 0.924 (P < 0.001). The significant difference in the means of ilioinguinal uptake between normal and lymphedema limbs infers reduced lymphatic function. Ilioinguinal lymph node uptake is thus a reliable parameter in quantitative analysis of lymphoscintigrams.
topic Lymphedema
lymphoscintigraphy
nuclear medicine
qualitative analysis
quantitative analysis
url http://www.wjnm.org/article.asp?issn=1450-1147;year=2019;volume=18;issue=1;spage=36;epage=41;aulast=Nganga
work_keys_str_mv AT edwardchegenganga comparisonofquantitativeanalysistoqualitativeanalysisforinterpretationoflowerlimblymphoscintigraphy
AT khalidmakhdomi comparisonofquantitativeanalysistoqualitativeanalysisforinterpretationoflowerlimblymphoscintigraphy
_version_ 1725247702761996288