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...
Main Authors: | , |
---|---|
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 |