% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Bischof:905078,
      author       = {Bischof, Gerard Nisal and Bartenstein, Peter and Barthel,
                      Henryk and van Berckel, Bart and Doré, Vincent and van
                      Eimeren, Thilo and Foster, Norman and Hammes, Jochen and
                      Lammertsma, Adriaan A. and Minoshima, Satoshi and Rowe,
                      Chris and Sabri, Osama and Seibyl, John and Van Laere, Koen
                      and Vandenberghe, Rik and Villemagne, Victor and Yakushev,
                      Igor and Drzezga, Alexander},
      title        = {{T}oward a {U}niversal {R}eadout for 18 {F}-{L}abeled
                      {A}myloid {T}racers: {T}he {CAPTAIN}s {S}tudy},
      journal      = {Journal of nuclear medicine},
      volume       = {62},
      number       = {7},
      issn         = {0022-3123},
      address      = {New York, NY},
      publisher    = {Soc.},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2022-00377},
      pages        = {999 - 1005},
      year         = {2021},
      abstract     = {To date, 3 18F-labeled PET tracers have been approved for
                      assessing cerebral amyloid plaque pathology in the
                      diagnostic workup of suspected Alzheimer disease (AD).
                      Although scanning protocols are relatively similar across
                      tracers, U.S. Food and Drug Administration- and the European
                      Medicines Agency-approved visual rating protocols differ
                      among the 3 tracers. This proof-of-concept study assessed
                      the comparability of the 3 approved visual rating protocols
                      to classify a scan as amyloid-positive or -negative, when
                      applied by groups of experts and nonexperts to all 3 amyloid
                      tracers. Methods: In an international multicenter approach,
                      both expert (n = 4) and nonexpert raters (n = 3) rated scans
                      acquired with 18F-florbetaben, 18F-florbetapir and
                      18F-flutemetamol. Scans obtained with each tracer were
                      presented for reading according to all 3 approved visual
                      rating protocols. In a randomized order, every single scan
                      was rated by each reader according to all 3 protocols.
                      Raters were blinded for the amyloid tracer used and asked to
                      rate each scan as positive or negative, giving a confidence
                      judgment after each response. Percentage of visual reader
                      agreement, interrater reliability, and agreement of each
                      visual read with binary quantitative measures (fixed SUV
                      ratio threshold for positive or negative scans) were
                      computed. These metrics were analyzed separately for expert
                      and nonexpert groups. Results: No significant differences in
                      using the different approved visual rating protocols were
                      observed across the different metrics of agreement in the
                      group of experts. Nominal differences suggested that the
                      18F-florbetaben visual rating protocol achieved the highest
                      interrater reliability and accuracy especially under low
                      confidence conditions. For the group of nonexpert raters,
                      significant differences between the different visual rating
                      protocols were observed with overall moderate-to-fair
                      accuracy and with the highest reliability for the
                      18F-florbetapir visual rating protocol. Conclusion: We
                      observed high interrater agreement despite applying
                      different visual rating protocols for all 18F-labeled
                      amyloid tracers. This implies that the results of the visual
                      interpretation of amyloid imaging can be well standardized
                      and do not depend on the rating protocol in experts.
                      Consequently, the creation of a universal visual assessment
                      protocol for all amyloid imaging tracers appears feasible,
                      which could benefit especially the less-experienced
                      readers.Keywords: amyloid PET; florbetaben; florbetapir;
                      flutemetamol; visual rating standardization.},
      cin          = {INM-2},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-2-20090406},
      pnm          = {5253 - Neuroimaging (POF4-525) / 5254 - Neuroscientific
                      Data Analytics and AI (POF4-525)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5253 / G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5254},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {33712532},
      UT           = {WOS:000770317400004},
      doi          = {10.2967/jnumed.120.250290},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/905078},
}