• Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases
• /
• v.48 no.3
• /
• pp.315-323
• /
• 2000

Background : An immunochromatographic assay (ICT Diagnostics) which facilitates the diagnosis of tuberculosis(TB) by detecting serum antibodies mainly directed against specific 38KDa of Mycobacterium tuberculosis has come into the market. The test consists of a cardboard folding device containing nitrocellulose strip and absorbent pads. The whole procedure is completed within 15 min and does not require any additional equipment. The test has been reported to be sensitive and specific in diagnosing active TB. Thus the test had been evaluated with sera from TB patients and TB-free subjects. Method : Sera from patients with active pulmonary tuberculosis(40 sputum positives for Mycobacterium tuberculosis, 79 sputum negatives, and 3 extrapulmonary tuberculosis) were obtained from the Double-Cross Chest Clinic of the Korean National Tuberculosis Association (KNTA) in Seoul. The control group consisted of TB-free 68 subjects(21 children under 7 years old and 47 healthy staff members of KNTA). Results : Nine out of 68(13.2%) TB-free controls had positive antibody response. Total 106 of 122(86.9%) radiologically active patients had positive antibodies while 16 (13.1%) showed negative reaction. Antibody was detected in 38 of 40(95.0%) sputum positive patients and 68 of 82(82.9%) sputum negative patients who were under the antituberculosis chemotherapy. The sensitivity and specificity were all 87% and the positive predictive value was 92.2% while the negative predictive value was 78.7%, when the prevalence of TB in the sample was 64.2%. Our results clearly show that the detection of antibodies which mainly react with the 38KDa antigen of M. tuberculosis is not suitable as the first-line method of diagnosis but considered only as an adjunctive test to standard techniques of tuberculosis diagnosis. when considering its high false positivity.

• The Korean Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.30-36
• /
• 2015

Purpose Whole body bone scan, which makes up a largest percentage of nuclear medicine tests, has high sensitivity and resolution about bone lesion like osteomyelitis, fracture and the early detection of primary cancer. However, any standard for valuation has not yet been created except minimum factor. Therefore, in this study, we will analysis the method which show a quantitative evaluation index in whole body bone scan. Materials and Methods This study is conducted among 30 call patients, who visited the hospital from April to September 2014 with no special point of view about bone lesion, using GE INFINIA equipment. Enumerated data is measured mainly with patient's whole body count and lumbar vertabrae, and the things which include CNR (Contrast to Noise ratio), SNR (Signal to Noise ratio) are calculated according to the mean value signal and standard deviation of each lumbar vertabrae. In addition, the numerical value with the abdominal thickness is compared to each value by the change of scan speed and tissue equivalent material throughout the phantom examination, and compared with 1hours deleyed value. Completely, on the scale of ten, 2 reading doctors and 5 skilled radiologists with 5-years experience analysis the correlation between visual analysis with blind test and quantitative calculation. Results The whole body count and interest region count of patients have no significant correlation with visual analysis value throughout the blind test(P<0.05). There is definite correlation among CNR and SNR. In phantom examination, Value of the change was caused by the thickness of the abdomen and the scan speed. And The poor value of the image in the subject as a delay test patient could be confirmed that the increase tendency. Conclusion Now, a standard for valuation has not been created in whole body bone scan except minimum factor. In this study, we can verify the significant correlation with blind test using CNR and SNR and also assure that the scan speed is a important factor to influence the imagine quality from the value. It is possible to be some limit depending on the physiology function and fluid intake of patient even if we progress the evaluation in same condition include same injection amount, same scan speed and so on. However, that we prove the significant evaluation index by presenting quantitative calculation objectively could be considered academic value.

• The Korean Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.51-58
• /
• 2019

Purpose In in-vitro laboratories of nuclear medicine department, when the reagent lot or reagent lot changes Comparability test or parallel test is performed to determine whether the results between lots are reliable. The most commonly used standard domestic laboratories is to obtain %difference from the difference in results between two lots of reagents, and then many laboratories are set the standard to less than 20% at low concentrations and less than 10% at medium and high concentrations. If the range is deviated from the standard, the test is considered failed and it is repeated until the result falls within the standard range. In this study, several tests are selected that are performed in nuclear medicine in-vitro laboratories to analyze parallel test results and to establish criteria for customized percent difference for each test. Materials and Methods From January to November 2018, the result of parallel test for reagent lot change is analyzed for 7 items including thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH), free thyroxine (FT4), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), CA-125, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), HBs-Ab and Insulin. The RIA-MAT 280 system which adopted the principle of IRMA is used for TSH, FT4, CEA, CA-125 and PSA. TECAN automated dispensing equipment and GAMMA-10 is used to measure insulin test. For the test of HBs-Ab, HAMILTON automated dispensing equipment and Cobra Gamma ray measuring instrument are used. Separate reagent, customized calibrator and quality control materials are used in this experiment. Results 1. TSH [%diffrence Max / Mean / Median] (P-value by t-test > 0.05) C-1(low concentration) [14.8 / 4.4 / 3.7 / 0.0 ] C-2(middle concentration) [10.1 / 4.2 / 3.7 / 0.0] 2. FT4 [%diffrence Max / Mean / Median] (P-value by t-test > 0.05) C-1(low concentration) [10.0 / 4.2 / 3.9 / 0.0] C-2(high concentration) [9.6 / 3.3 / 3.1 / 0.0 ] 3. CA-125 [%diffrence Max / Mean / Median] (P-value by t-test > 0.05) C-1(middle concentration) [9.6 / 4.3 / 4.3 / 0.3] C-2(high concentration) [6.5 / 3.5 / 4.3 / 0.4] 4. CEA [%diffrence Max / Mean / median] (P-value by t-test > 0.05) C-1(low concentration) [9.8 / 4.2 / 3.0 / 0.0] C-2(middle concentration) [8.7 / 3.7 / 2.3 / 0.3] 5. PSA [%diffrence Max / Mean / Median] (P-value by t-test > 0.05) C-1(low concentration) [15.4 / 7.6 / 8.2 / 0.0] C-2(middle concentration) [8.8 / 4.5 / 4.8 / 0.9] 6. HBs-Ab [%diffrence Max / Mean / Median] (P-value by t-test > 0.05) C-1(middle concentration) [9.6 / 3.7 / 2.7 / 0.2] C-2(high concentration) [8.9 / 4.1 / 3.6 / 0.3] 7. Insulin [%diffrence Max / Mean / Median] (P-value by t-test > 0.05) C-1(middle concentration) [8.7 / 3.1 / 2.4 / 0.9] C-2(high concentration) [8.3 / 3.2 / 1.5 / 0.1] In some low concentration measurements, the percent difference is found above 10 to nearly 15 percent in result of target value calculated at a lower concentration. In addition, when the value is measured after Standard level 6, which is the highest value of reagents in the dispensing sequence, the result would have been affected by a hook effect. Overall, there was no significant difference in lot change of quality control material (p-value>0.05). Conclusion Variations between reagent lots are not large in immunoradiometric assays. It is likely that this is due to the selection of items that have relatively high detection rate in the immunoradiometric method and several remeasurements. In most test results, the difference was less than 10 percent, which was within the standard range. TSH control level 1 and PSA control level 1, which have low concentration target value, exceeded 10 percent more than twice, but it did not result in a value that was near 20 percent. As a result, it is required to perform a longer period of observation for more homogenized average results and to obtain laboratory-specific acceptance criteria for each item. Also, it is advised to study observations considering various variables.