UNLABELLED: Several models for the quantitative analysis of myocardial blood flow (MBF) at stress and rest and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) with (13)N-ammonia myocardial perfusion PET have been implemented for clinical use. We aimed to compare quantitative results obtained from 3 software tools (QPET, syngo MBF, and PMOD), which perform PET MBF quantification with either a 2-compartment model (QPET and syngo MBF) or a 1-compartment model (PMOD). METHODS: We considered 33 adenosine stress and rest (13)N-ammonia studies (22 men and 11 women). Average age was 54.5 ± 15 y, and average body mass index was 26 ± 4.2. Eighteen patients had a very low likelihood of disease, with no chest pain, normal relative perfusion results, and normal function. All data were obtained on a PET/CT scanner in list mode with CT attenuation maps. Sixteen dynamic frames were reconstructed (twelve 10-s, two 30-s, one 1-min, and one 6-min frames). Global and regional stress and rest MBF and MFR values were obtained with each tool. Left ventricular contours and input function region were obtained automatically in system QPET and syngo MBF and manually in PMOD. RESULTS: The flow values and MFR values were highly correlated among the 3 packages (R(2) ranging from 0.88 to 0.92 for global values and from 0.78 to 0.94 for regional values. Mean reference MFR values were similar for QPET, syngo MBF, and PMOD (3.39 ± 1.22, 3.41 ± 0.76, and 3.66 ± 1.19, respectively) by 1-way ANOVA (P = 0.74). The lowest MFR in very low likelihood patients in any given vascular territory was 2.25 for QPET, 2.13 for syngo MBF, and 2.23 for PMOD. CONCLUSION: Different implementations of 1- and 2-compartment models demonstrate an excellent correlation in MFR for each vascular territory, with similar mean MFR values.
UNLABELLED: Several models for the quantitative analysis of myocardial blood flow (MBF) at stress and rest and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) with (13)N-ammonia myocardial perfusion PET have been implemented for clinical use. We aimed to compare quantitative results obtained from 3 software tools (QPET, syngo MBF, and PMOD), which perform PET MBF quantification with either a 2-compartment model (QPET and syngo MBF) or a 1-compartment model (PMOD). METHODS: We considered 33 adenosine stress and rest (13)N-ammonia studies (22 men and 11 women). Average age was 54.5 ± 15 y, and average body mass index was 26 ± 4.2. Eighteen patients had a very low likelihood of disease, with no chest pain, normal relative perfusion results, and normal function. All data were obtained on a PET/CT scanner in list mode with CT attenuation maps. Sixteen dynamic frames were reconstructed (twelve 10-s, two 30-s, one 1-min, and one 6-min frames). Global and regional stress and rest MBF and MFR values were obtained with each tool. Left ventricular contours and input function region were obtained automatically in system QPET and syngo MBF and manually in PMOD. RESULTS: The flow values and MFR values were highly correlated among the 3 packages (R(2) ranging from 0.88 to 0.92 for global values and from 0.78 to 0.94 for regional values. Mean reference MFR values were similar for QPET, syngo MBF, and PMOD (3.39 ± 1.22, 3.41 ± 0.76, and 3.66 ± 1.19, respectively) by 1-way ANOVA (P = 0.74). The lowest MFR in very low likelihood patients in any given vascular territory was 2.25 for QPET, 2.13 for syngo MBF, and 2.23 for PMOD. CONCLUSION: Different implementations of 1- and 2-compartment models demonstrate an excellent correlation in MFR for each vascular territory, with similar mean MFR values.