PURPOSE: We compared the quality, interpretive confidence and interreader agreement between SPECT and PET myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) in the same group of patients. METHODS: The study group comprised 27 patients (age 55 ± 8.5 years, 12 men) with known or suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) who had undergone gated rest/stress MPI with (99m)Tc-labelled agent SPECT (with and without attenuation correction, AC), and subsequent clinical confirmation with (82)Rb PET. Three experienced readers blinded to the clinical information interpreted all MPI studies. RESULTS: Interreader agreement was significantly superior for PET studies than for SPECT studies. Following consensus interpretation, the quality of 22 % of the non-AC SPECT studies, 33 % of the AC SPECT studies and 63 % of the PET studies was assessed as excellent or good (p = 0.016). Interpretations were definitely normal or abnormal in 7 % of non-AC SPECT studies, 30 % of AC SPECT studies and 85 % of PET studies (p = 0.046). In 13 patients who had received either invasive coronary angiography or CT angiography with no significant CAD, the true-positive rate for significant CAD was higher for PET, and the true-negative rate was equal for PET and AC SPECT, and lower for non-AC SPECT. CONCLUSION: (82)Rb PET MPI, used as a confirmatory test after SPECT, offers improved image quality, interpretive confidence and interreader agreement.
PURPOSE: We compared the quality, interpretive confidence and interreader agreement between SPECT and PET myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) in the same group of patients. METHODS: The study group comprised 27 patients (age 55 ± 8.5 years, 12 men) with known or suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) who had undergone gated rest/stress MPI with (99m)Tc-labelled agent SPECT (with and without attenuation correction, AC), and subsequent clinical confirmation with (82)Rb PET. Three experienced readers blinded to the clinical information interpreted all MPI studies. RESULTS: Interreader agreement was significantly superior for PET studies than for SPECT studies. Following consensus interpretation, the quality of 22 % of the non-AC SPECT studies, 33 % of the AC SPECT studies and 63 % of the PET studies was assessed as excellent or good (p = 0.016). Interpretations were definitely normal or abnormal in 7 % of non-AC SPECT studies, 30 % of AC SPECT studies and 85 % of PET studies (p = 0.046). In 13 patients who had received either invasive coronary angiography or CT angiography with no significant CAD, the true-positive rate for significant CAD was higher for PET, and the true-negative rate was equal for PET and AC SPECT, and lower for non-AC SPECT. CONCLUSION: (82)Rb PET MPI, used as a confirmatory test after SPECT, offers improved image quality, interpretive confidence and interreader agreement.
Authors: Manuel D Cerqueira; Neil J Weissman; Vasken Dilsizian; Alice K Jacobs; Sanjiv Kaul; Warren K Laskey; Dudley J Pennell; John A Rumberger; Thomas Ryan; Mario S Verani Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-01-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: R T Go; T H Marwick; W J MacIntyre; G B Saha; D R Neumann; D A Underwood; C C Simpfendorfer Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1990-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Alexander G Pitman; Victor Kalff; Bruce Van Every; Borghild Risa; Leighton R Barnden; Michael J Kelly Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2005 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: R E Stewart; M Schwaiger; E Molina; J Popma; G M Gacioch; M Kalus; S Squicciarini; Z R al-Aouar; A Schork; D E Kuhl Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 1991-06-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Timothy M Bateman; Gary V Heller; A Iain McGhie; John D Friedman; James A Case; Jan R Bryngelson; Ginger K Hertenstein; Kelly L Moutray; Kimberly Reid; S James Cullom Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2006 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Peter J Bergquist; Michael S Chung; Anja Jones; Mark A Ahlman; Charles S White; Jean Jeudy Journal: Curr Cardiol Rep Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 2.931
Authors: Maria Clementina Giorgi; Jose Claudio Meneghetti; Jose Soares; Marisa Izaki; Andréa Falcão; Rodrigo Imada; William Chalela; Marco Antonio de Oliveira; Cesar Nomura; Hein J Verberne Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-12-16 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Paul K R Dasari; Judson P Jones; Michael E Casey; Yuanyuan Liang; Vasken Dilsizian; Mark F Smith Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2018-06-15 Impact factor: 5.952