BACKGROUND: We evaluated the feasibility of perfusion SPECT/CT for providing quantitative data for estimation of perfusion defect extent in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). METHODS: Thirty patients with CTEPH underwent Tc-human serum albumin lung perfusion SPECT/CT. Perfusion defects were quantified using 3 different methods: (1) visual, semiquantitative scoring of perfusion defect extent in each lung segment, (2) threshold-based segmentation of perfused lung volumes, and (3) threshold-based segmentation of perfused lung volumes divided by segmented lung volumes at CT (perfusion index). Imaging findings were correlated with right-sided heart catheterization results and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to identify SPECT thresholds for mean pulmonary arterial pressure (PAPm) greater than 50 mm Hg. RESULTS: Assessment of lung perfusion provided similar results using all 3 methods. The perfusion defect score correlated with PAPm (rs = 0.60, P = 0.0005) and was associated with serum levels of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (rs = 0.37, P = 0.04). Perfused lung volume (40% threshold, rs = -0.48, P = 0.007) and perfusion index (40% threshold, rs = -0.50, P = 0.005) decreased as PAPm increased. Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that perfusion defect score (sensitivity, 88%; specificity, 77%; area under the curve [AUC] = 0.89, P = 0.001), perfused lung volume (sensitivity, 88%; specificity, 64%; AUC = 0.80, P = 0.01), and perfusion index (sensitivity, 88%; specificity, 64%; AUC = 0.82, P = 0.009) could identify patients with PAPm of greater than 50 mm Hg. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative analysis of perfusion defects at SPECT is feasible, provides a measure of disease severity, and correlates with established clinical parameters. Quantitation of perfusion SPECT may refine the diagnostic approach in CTEPH providing a quantitative imaging biomarker, for example, for therapy monitoring.
BACKGROUND: We evaluated the feasibility of perfusion SPECT/CT for providing quantitative data for estimation of perfusion defect extent in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). METHODS: Thirty patients with CTEPH underwent Tc-human serum albumin lung perfusion SPECT/CT. Perfusion defects were quantified using 3 different methods: (1) visual, semiquantitative scoring of perfusion defect extent in each lung segment, (2) threshold-based segmentation of perfused lung volumes, and (3) threshold-based segmentation of perfused lung volumes divided by segmented lung volumes at CT (perfusion index). Imaging findings were correlated with right-sided heart catheterization results and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to identify SPECT thresholds for mean pulmonary arterial pressure (PAPm) greater than 50 mm Hg. RESULTS: Assessment of lung perfusion provided similar results using all 3 methods. The perfusion defect score correlated with PAPm (rs = 0.60, P = 0.0005) and was associated with serum levels of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (rs = 0.37, P = 0.04). Perfused lung volume (40% threshold, rs = -0.48, P = 0.007) and perfusion index (40% threshold, rs = -0.50, P = 0.005) decreased as PAPm increased. Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that perfusion defect score (sensitivity, 88%; specificity, 77%; area under the curve [AUC] = 0.89, P = 0.001), perfused lung volume (sensitivity, 88%; specificity, 64%; AUC = 0.80, P = 0.01), and perfusion index (sensitivity, 88%; specificity, 64%; AUC = 0.82, P = 0.009) could identify patients with PAPm of greater than 50 mm Hg. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative analysis of perfusion defects at SPECT is feasible, provides a measure of disease severity, and correlates with established clinical parameters. Quantitation of perfusion SPECT may refine the diagnostic approach in CTEPH providing a quantitative imaging biomarker, for example, for therapy monitoring.
Authors: Carrie P Aaron; Eric A Hoffman; Steven M Kawut; John H M Austin; Matthew Budoff; Erin D Michos; Karen Hinckley Stukovsky; Coralynn Sack; Adam A Szpiro; Karol D Watson; Joel D Kaufman; R Graham Barr Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2019-06-05 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Yoshiharu Ohno; Joon Beom Seo; Grace Parraga; Kyung Soo Lee; Warren B Gefter; Sean B Fain; Mark L Schiebler; Hiroto Hatabu Journal: Radiology Date: 2021-04-06 Impact factor: 29.146
Authors: Lea Behrendt; Laurie J Smith; Andreas Voskrebenzev; Filip Klimeš; Till F Kaireit; Gesa H Pöhler; Agilo L Kern; Cristian Crisosto Gonzalez; Anna-Maria Dittrich; Helen Marshall; Katharina Schütz; Paul J C Hughes; Pierluigi Ciet; Harm A W M Tiddens; Jim M Wild; Jens Vogel-Claussen Journal: Pulm Circ Date: 2022-04-05 Impact factor: 2.886