Paul K R Dasari1, Judson P Jones2, Michael E Casey2, Yuanyuan Liang3, Vasken Dilsizian1, Mark F Smith4. 1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 22 South Greene St., Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA. 2. Siemens Healthineers, Knoxville, TN, USA. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 4. Department of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 22 South Greene St., Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA. msmith7@umm.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effect of time-of-flight (TOF) and point spread function (PSF) modeling in image reconstruction has not been well studied for cardiac PET. This study assesses their separate and combined influence on 82Rb myocardial perfusion imaging in obese patients. METHODS: Thirty-six obese patients underwent rest-stress 82Rb cardiac PET. Images were reconstructed with and without TOF and PSF modeling. Perfusion was quantitatively compared using the AHA 17-segment model for patients grouped by BMI, cross-sectional body area in the scanner field of view, gender, and left ventricular myocardial volume. Summed rest scores (SRS), summed stress scores (SSS), and summed difference scores (SDS) were compared. RESULTS: TOF improved polar map visual uniformity and increased septal wall perfusion by up to 10%. This increase was greater for larger patients, more evident for patients grouped by cross-sectional area than by BMI, and more prominent for females. PSF modeling increased perfusion by about 1.5% in all cardiac segments. TOF modeling generally decreased SRS and SSS with significant decreases between 2.4 and 3.0 (P < .05), which could affect risk stratification; SDS remained about the same. With PSF modeling, SRS, SSS, and SDS were largely unchanged. CONCLUSION: TOF and PSF modeling affect regional and global perfusion, SRS, and SSS. Clinicians should consider these effects and gender-dependent differences when interpreting 82Rb perfusion studies.
BACKGROUND: The effect of time-of-flight (TOF) and point spread function (PSF) modeling in image reconstruction has not been well studied for cardiac PET. This study assesses their separate and combined influence on 82Rb myocardial perfusion imaging in obesepatients. METHODS: Thirty-six obesepatients underwent rest-stress 82Rb cardiac PET. Images were reconstructed with and without TOF and PSF modeling. Perfusion was quantitatively compared using the AHA 17-segment model for patients grouped by BMI, cross-sectional body area in the scanner field of view, gender, and left ventricular myocardial volume. Summed rest scores (SRS), summed stress scores (SSS), and summed difference scores (SDS) were compared. RESULTS: TOF improved polar map visual uniformity and increased septal wall perfusion by up to 10%. This increase was greater for larger patients, more evident for patients grouped by cross-sectional area than by BMI, and more prominent for females. PSF modeling increased perfusion by about 1.5% in all cardiac segments. TOF modeling generally decreased SRS and SSS with significant decreases between 2.4 and 3.0 (P < .05), which could affect risk stratification; SDS remained about the same. With PSF modeling, SRS, SSS, and SDS were largely unchanged. CONCLUSION: TOF and PSF modeling affect regional and global perfusion, SRS, and SSS. Clinicians should consider these effects and gender-dependent differences when interpreting 82Rb perfusion studies.
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: Cristina Lois; Bjoern W Jakoby; Misty J Long; Karl F Hubner; David W Barker; Michael E Casey; Maurizio Conti; Vladimir Y Panin; Dan J Kadrmas; David W Townsend Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-01-15 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Fabio P Esteves; Jonathan A Nye; Akbar Khan; Russell D Folks; Raghuveer K Halkar; Ernest V Garcia; David M Schuster; Stamatios Lerakis; Paolo Raggi; John R Votaw Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2009-11-24 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Dan J Kadrmas; Michael E Casey; Maurizio Conti; Bjoern W Jakoby; Cristina Lois; David W Townsend Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-07-17 Impact factor: 10.057
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