Sergey V Nesterov1,2, Emmanuel Deshayes3,4, John O Prior3, Juhani M Knuuti1, Roberto Sciagrà5, Leonardo Settimo5, Jerome M Declerck6, Xiao-Bo Pan6, Keiichiro Yoshinaga7, Chietsugu Katoh7, Piotr J Slomka8, Guido Germano8, Chunlei Han1, Ville Aalto1, Adam M Alessio9, Edward P Ficaro10, Benjamin C Lee11, Stephan G Nekolla12, Kilem L Gwet13, Robert A deKemp14, Ran Klein14, John Dickson15, James A Case16, Timothy Bateman16. 1. Turku PET Centre, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland. 2. IM Sechenov Institute of Evolutionary Physiology and Biochemistry RAS, St. Petersburg, Russia. 3. Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland. 4. Regional Cancer Institute of Montpellier (ICM) - Val d'Aurelle, Montpellier, France. 5. University of Florence, Florence, Italy. 6. Siemens Molecular Imaging, Oxford, United Kingdom. 7. Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan. 8. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, United States. 9. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States. 10. University of Michigan Health Systems, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States. 11. INVIA Medical Imaging Solutions, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States. 12. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technical University, Munich, Germany. 13. Advanced Analytics LLC, Gaithersburg, Maryland, United States. 14. National Cardiac PET Center, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Canada. 15. University College London, London, United Kingdom. 16. Cardiovascular Imaging Technologies, Kansas City, Missouri, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) estimates from rubidium-82 positron emission tomography ((82)Rb PET) data using 10 software packages (SPs) based on 8 tracer kinetic models. BACKGROUND: It is unknown how MBF and MFR values from existing SPs agree for (82)Rb PET. METHODS: Rest and stress (82)Rb PET scans of 48 patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease were analyzed in 10 centers. Each center used 1 of 10 SPs to analyze global and regional MBF using the different kinetic models implemented. Values were considered to agree if they simultaneously had an intraclass correlation coefficient >0.75 and a difference <20% of the median across all programs. RESULTS: The most common model evaluated was the Ottawa Heart Institute 1-tissue compartment model (OHI-1-TCM). MBF values from 7 of 8 SPs implementing this model agreed best. Values from 2 other models (alternative 1-TCM and Axially distributed) also agreed well, with occasional differences. The MBF results from other models (e.g., 2-TCM and retention) were less in agreement with values from OHI-1-TCM. CONCLUSIONS: SPs using the most common kinetic model-OHI-1-TCM-provided consistent results in measuring global and regional MBF values, suggesting that they may be used interchangeably to process data acquired with a common imaging protocol.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) estimates from rubidium-82 positron emission tomography ((82)Rb PET) data using 10 software packages (SPs) based on 8 tracer kinetic models. BACKGROUND: It is unknown how MBF and MFR values from existing SPs agree for (82)Rb PET. METHODS: Rest and stress (82)Rb PET scans of 48 patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease were analyzed in 10 centers. Each center used 1 of 10 SPs to analyze global and regional MBF using the different kinetic models implemented. Values were considered to agree if they simultaneously had an intraclass correlation coefficient >0.75 and a difference <20% of the median across all programs. RESULTS: The most common model evaluated was the Ottawa Heart Institute 1-tissue compartment model (OHI-1-TCM). MBF values from 7 of 8 SPs implementing this model agreed best. Values from 2 other models (alternative 1-TCM and Axially distributed) also agreed well, with occasional differences. The MBF results from other models (e.g., 2-TCM and retention) were less in agreement with values from OHI-1-TCM. CONCLUSIONS:SPs using the most common kinetic model-OHI-1-TCM-provided consistent results in measuring global and regional MBF values, suggesting that they may be used interchangeably to process data acquired with a common imaging protocol.
Authors: Keiichiro Yoshinaga; Benjamin J W Chow; Kathryn Williams; Li Chen; Robert A deKemp; Linda Garrard; Alexander Lok-Tin Szeto; May Aung; Ross A Davies; Terrence D Ruddy; Rob S B Beanlands Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-08-17 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: John O Prior; Gilles Allenbach; Ines Valenta; Marek Kosinski; Cyrill Burger; Francis R Verdun; Angelika Bischof Delaloye; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-03-08 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Maria C Ziadi; Robert A Dekemp; Kathryn Williams; Ann Guo; Jennifer M Renaud; Benjamin J W Chow; Ran Klein; Terrence D Ruddy; May Aung; Linda Garrard; Rob S B Beanlands Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Mireille Lortie; Rob S B Beanlands; Keiichiro Yoshinaga; Ran Klein; Jean N Dasilva; Robert A DeKemp Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2007-07-07 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Jonathan B Moody; Keri M Hiller; Benjamin C Lee; Alexis Poitrasson-Rivière; James R Corbett; Richard L Weinberg; Venkatesh L Murthy; Edward P Ficaro Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2019-02-26 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Jonathan B Moody; Benjamin C Lee; James R Corbett; Edward P Ficaro; Venkatesh L Murthy Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2015-04-14 Impact factor: 5.952