Kisoo Pahk1, Sun Young Oh1, Eugene Jeong1, Sung Ho Lee2, Sang Keun Woo3, Jung Woo Yu3, Jae Gol Choe1, Gi Jeong Cheon4. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Korea University Anam Hospital, 126-1, Anam-Dong 5-Ga, Seongbuk-Gu, Seoul, 136-705 South Korea. 2. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul, South Korea. 3. Molecular Imaging Research Center, Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences, Seoul, South Korea. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Korea University Anam Hospital, 126-1, Anam-Dong 5-Ga, Seongbuk-Gu, Seoul, 136-705 South Korea ; Department of Nuclear Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-Ro, Jongno-Gu, Seoul, 110-744 South Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the reliability of quantitation of myocardial viability on cardiac F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) scans with three different methods of visual scoring system, autoquantitation using commercially available autoquantitation software, and infarct-size measurement using histogram-based maximum pixel threshold identification on polar-map in rat hearts. METHODS: A myocardial infarct (MI) model was made by left anterior descending artery (LAD) ligation in rat hearts. Eighteen MI rats underwent cardiac FDG-PET-computed tomography (CT) twice within a 4-week interval. Myocardium was partitioned into 20 segments for the comparison, and then we quantitated non-viable myocardium on cardiac FDG PET-CT with three different methods: method A-infarct-size measurement using histogram-based maximum pixel threshold identification on polar-map; method B-summed MI score (SMS) by a four-point visual scoring system; method C-metabolic non-viable values by commercially available autoquantitation software. Changes of non-viable myocardium on serial PET-CT scans with three different methods were calculated by the change of each parameter. Correlation and reproducibility were evaluated between the different methods. RESULTS: Infarct-size measurement, visual SMS, and non-viable values by autoquantitation software presented proportional relationship to each other. All the parameters of methods A, B, and C showed relatively good correlation between each other. Among them, infarct-size measurement (method A) and autoquantitation software (method C) showed the best correlation (r = 0.87, p < 0.001). When we evaluated the changes of non-viable myocardium on the serial FDG-PET-CT- however, autoquantitation program showed less correlation with the other methods. Visual assessment (method B) and those of infarct size (method A) showed the best correlation (r = 0.54, p = 0.02) for the assessment of interval changes. CONCLUSIONS: Commercially available quantitation software could be applied to measure the myocardial viability on small animal cardiac FDG-PET-CT scan. This kind of quantitation showed good correlation with infarct size measurement by histogram-based maximum pixel threshold identification. However, this method showed the weak correlation when applied in the measuring the changes of non-viable myocardium on the serial scans, which means that the caution will be needed to evaluate the changes on the serial monitoring.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the reliability of quantitation of myocardial viability on cardiac F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) scans with three different methods of visual scoring system, autoquantitation using commercially available autoquantitation software, and infarct-size measurement using histogram-based maximum pixel threshold identification on polar-map in rat hearts. METHODS: A myocardial infarct (MI) model was made by left anterior descending artery (LAD) ligation in rat hearts. Eighteen MI rats underwent cardiac FDG-PET-computed tomography (CT) twice within a 4-week interval. Myocardium was partitioned into 20 segments for the comparison, and then we quantitated non-viable myocardium on cardiac FDG PET-CT with three different methods: method A-infarct-size measurement using histogram-based maximum pixel threshold identification on polar-map; method B-summed MI score (SMS) by a four-point visual scoring system; method C-metabolic non-viable values by commercially available autoquantitation software. Changes of non-viable myocardium on serial PET-CT scans with three different methods were calculated by the change of each parameter. Correlation and reproducibility were evaluated between the different methods. RESULTS:Infarct-size measurement, visual SMS, and non-viable values by autoquantitation software presented proportional relationship to each other. All the parameters of methods A, B, and C showed relatively good correlation between each other. Among them, infarct-size measurement (method A) and autoquantitation software (method C) showed the best correlation (r = 0.87, p < 0.001). When we evaluated the changes of non-viable myocardium on the serial FDG-PET-CT- however, autoquantitation program showed less correlation with the other methods. Visual assessment (method B) and those of infarct size (method A) showed the best correlation (r = 0.54, p = 0.02) for the assessment of interval changes. CONCLUSIONS: Commercially available quantitation software could be applied to measure the myocardial viability on small animal cardiac FDG-PET-CT scan. This kind of quantitation showed good correlation with infarct size measurement by histogram-based maximum pixel threshold identification. However, this method showed the weak correlation when applied in the measuring the changes of non-viable myocardium on the serial scans, which means that the caution will be needed to evaluate the changes on the serial monitoring.
Authors: Takashi Kudo; Kazuki Fukuchi; Alexander J Annala; Arion F Chatziioannou; Vivekanand Allada; Magnus Dahlbom; Yuan-Chuan Tai; Masayuki Inubushi; Sung-Cheng Huang; Simon R Cherry; Michael E Phelps; Heinrich R Schelbert Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-07-02 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: A N Kitsiou; S L Bacharach; M L Bartlett; G Srinivasan; R M Summers; A A Quyyumi; V Dilsizian Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Takahiro Higuchi; Stephan G Nekolla; Antanas Jankaukas; Axel W Weber; Marc C Huisman; Sybille Reder; Sibylle I Ziegler; Markus Schwaiger; Frank M Bengel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: K F Van Train; E V Garcia; J Maddahi; J Areeda; C D Cooke; H Kiat; G Silagan; R Folks; J Friedman; L Matzer Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1994-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: M Schwaiger; R Brunken; M Grover-McKay; J Krivokapich; J Child; J H Tillisch; M E Phelps; H R Schelbert Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1986-10 Impact factor: 24.094