OBJECTIVES: We aimed to develop a Japanese normal database for specific acquisition conditions, to compare US and Japanese normal populations, and to examine effects of camera rotation angle range on the normal limits. METHODS AND RESULTS: Stress-rest (99m)Tc myocardial perfusion databases for 360 degrees (Jp360) and 180 degrees (Jp180) acquisitions were created by the working group activity of the Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine using Japanese patients. A standard 180 degrees database (US180) had been previously generated by the Cedars Sinai Medical Center based on American patients. Additionally, 90 Japanese patients underwent coronary arteriography and stress-rest (99m)Tc perfusion study with 360 degrees acquisition for validation purposes, and quantitative evaluation was performed by QPS software using the above three normal database sets. Major differences between US180 and Jp360 databases were found in the apex and in the anterior wall in females and in the inferior wall in males. When the diagnostic performance was evaluated by receiver-operating characteristic analysis, area under the curve was the highest for Jp360 (0.842), followed by Jp180 (0.758) and US180 (0.728) databases (P = .019, Jp360 vs US180; P = .035, Jp360 vs Jp180). The coronary territory score at stress was highest with the Jp360 database in male patients with right coronary artery stenosis (n = 26, Jp360: 4.92 +/- 4.61 [mean +/- SD], Jp180: 4.23 +/- 4.29, US180: 2.92 +/- 3.53; P < .0001 between Jp360 and US180) and in female patients with left anterior descending artery stenosis (n = 12, Jp360: 6.33 +/- 4.76, Jp180: 5.25 +/- 4.83, US180: 4.50 +/- 4.15; P = .0076 between Jp360 and US180). CONCLUSION: Because of the differences between US and Japanese normal databases, it is essential to use population- and acquisition-specific databases when using quantitative perfusion SPECT software.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to develop a Japanese normal database for specific acquisition conditions, to compare US and Japanese normal populations, and to examine effects of camera rotation angle range on the normal limits. METHODS AND RESULTS: Stress-rest (99m)Tc myocardial perfusion databases for 360 degrees (Jp360) and 180 degrees (Jp180) acquisitions were created by the working group activity of the Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine using Japanese patients. A standard 180 degrees database (US180) had been previously generated by the Cedars Sinai Medical Center based on American patients. Additionally, 90 Japanese patients underwent coronary arteriography and stress-rest (99m)Tc perfusion study with 360 degrees acquisition for validation purposes, and quantitative evaluation was performed by QPS software using the above three normal database sets. Major differences between US180 and Jp360 databases were found in the apex and in the anterior wall in females and in the inferior wall in males. When the diagnostic performance was evaluated by receiver-operating characteristic analysis, area under the curve was the highest for Jp360 (0.842), followed by Jp180 (0.758) and US180 (0.728) databases (P = .019, Jp360 vs US180; P = .035, Jp360 vs Jp180). The coronary territory score at stress was highest with the Jp360 database in male patients with right coronary artery stenosis (n = 26, Jp360: 4.92 +/- 4.61 [mean +/- SD], Jp180: 4.23 +/- 4.29, US180: 2.92 +/- 3.53; P < .0001 between Jp360 and US180) and in female patients with left anterior descending artery stenosis (n = 12, Jp360: 6.33 +/- 4.76, Jp180: 5.25 +/- 4.83, US180: 4.50 +/- 4.15; P = .0076 between Jp360 and US180). CONCLUSION: Because of the differences between US and Japanese normal databases, it is essential to use population- and acquisition-specific databases when using quantitative perfusion SPECT software.
Authors: R L Eisner; M J Tamas; K Cloninger; D Shonkoff; J A Oates; A M Gober; D W Dunn; J A Malko; A L Churchwell; R E Patterson Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1988-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: R T Go; W J MacIntyre; T S Houser; M Pantoja; J K O'Donnell; D H Feiglin; B J Sufka; D A Underwood; T F Meaney Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1985-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: N Tamaki; T Mukai; Y Ishii; T Fujita; K Yamamoto; K Minato; Y Yonekura; S Tamaki; H Kambara; C Kawai; K Torizuka Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1982-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: G Germano; P B Kavanagh; P Waechter; J Areeda; S Van Kriekinge; T Sharir; H C Lewin; D S Berman Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Gabriel B Grossman; Ernest V Garcia; Timothy M Bateman; Gary V Heller; Lynne L Johnson; Russell D Folks; S James Cullom; James R Galt; James A Case; Cesar A Santana; Raghuveer K Halkar Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2004 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Piotr J Slomka; Hidetaka Nishina; Daniel S Berman; Xingping Kang; John D Friedman; Sean W Hayes; Usaf E Aladl; Guido Germano Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Levent A Guner; Nese Ilgin Karabacak; Tansel Cakir; Ozgur U Akdemir; Sinan A Kocaman; Atiye Cengel; Mustafa Unlu Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-06-29 Impact factor: 9.236