Rahul D Renapurkar1, Michael A Bolen1,2, Sankaran Shrikanthan1, Jennifer Bullen3, Wadih Karim1, Andrew Primak4, Gustavo A Heresi5. 1. Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 2. Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 3. Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 4. Siemens Medical Solutions, Malvern, PA, USA. 5. Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Respiratory Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the qualitative and quantitative assessment of perfusion on dual-energy CT (DECT) and planar and single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)-CT V/Q scanning in patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). METHODS: Nineteen patients with known CTEPH underwent both DECT and SPECT-CT V/Q scanning. Sixteen of these patients underwent planar V/Q imaging concurrently. Two readers independently graded DECT-perfused blood volume (PBV) defects on a four-point scale (0= normal, 1= mild <25%, 2= moderate 25-50%, 3= severe >50%). A grade was given for each lung lobe and for each of 18 lung segments. One reader graded the SPECT-CT images similarly. Quantitative measurements of lung perfusion were calculated with DECT and planar V/Q scanning for 16 of these patients. RESULTS: The inter-reader agreement on DECT was strong with agreement in 85% (258/304) of segments (kappa =0.86) and 84% (80/95) of lobes (kappa =0.82). The inter-modality agreement between DECT and SPECT-CT was lower. Readers 1 and 3 agreed in only 34% (103/304) of segments (kappa =0.25) and 33% (31/94) of lobes (kappa =0.22). Agreement between readers 2 and 3 was similar. Correlation between quantitative measurements with DECT and planar V/Q imaging was poor and ranged from 0.01 to 0.45. CONCLUSIONS: Inter-observer agreement in subjective grading of PBV maps is excellent. However, inter-modality agreement between DECT and SPECT-CT is modest. Automated quantification values of PBV maps correlate poorly with established tools like planar V/Q imaging. These differences need to be kept in mind during clinical decision making.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the qualitative and quantitative assessment of perfusion on dual-energy CT (DECT) and planar and single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)-CT V/Q scanning in patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). METHODS: Nineteen patients with known CTEPH underwent both DECT and SPECT-CT V/Q scanning. Sixteen of these patients underwent planar V/Q imaging concurrently. Two readers independently graded DECT-perfused blood volume (PBV) defects on a four-point scale (0= normal, 1= mild <25%, 2= moderate 25-50%, 3= severe >50%). A grade was given for each lung lobe and for each of 18 lung segments. One reader graded the SPECT-CT images similarly. Quantitative measurements of lung perfusion were calculated with DECT and planar V/Q scanning for 16 of these patients. RESULTS: The inter-reader agreement on DECT was strong with agreement in 85% (258/304) of segments (kappa =0.86) and 84% (80/95) of lobes (kappa =0.82). The inter-modality agreement between DECT and SPECT-CT was lower. Readers 1 and 3 agreed in only 34% (103/304) of segments (kappa =0.25) and 33% (31/94) of lobes (kappa =0.22). Agreement between readers 2 and 3 was similar. Correlation between quantitative measurements with DECT and planar V/Q imaging was poor and ranged from 0.01 to 0.45. CONCLUSIONS: Inter-observer agreement in subjective grading of PBV maps is excellent. However, inter-modality agreement between DECT and SPECT-CT is modest. Automated quantification values of PBV maps correlate poorly with established tools like planar V/Q imaging. These differences need to be kept in mind during clinical decision making.
Authors: Edward T D Hoey; Saeed Mirsadraee; Joanna Pepke-Zaba; David P Jenkins; Deepa Gopalan; Nicholas J Screaton Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Yoo Jin Hong; Ja Young Kim; Kyu Ok Choe; Jin Hur; Hye-Jeong Lee; Byoung Wook Choi; Young Jin Kim Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Nazzareno Galiè; Marius M Hoeper; Marc Humbert; Adam Torbicki; Jean-Luc Vachiery; Joan Albert Barbera; Maurice Beghetti; Paul Corris; Sean Gaine; J Simon Gibbs; Miguel Angel Gomez-Sanchez; Guillaume Jondeau; Walter Klepetko; Christian Opitz; Andrew Peacock; Lewis Rubin; Michael Zellweger; Gerald Simonneau Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2009-08-27 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Andrew J Swift; Smitha Rajaram; Judith Hurdman; Catherine Hill; Christine Davies; Tom W Sproson; Allison C Morton; Dave Capener; Charlie Elliot; Robin Condliffe; Jim M Wild; David G Kiely Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-06-13
Authors: Hester A Gietema; Kim H M Walraven; Rein Posthuma; Cristina Mitea; Dirk-Jan Slebos; Lowie E G W Vanfleteren Journal: Respiration Date: 2021-08-10 Impact factor: 3.580
Authors: David Sin; Gordon McLennan; Fabian Rengier; Ihab Haddadin; Gustavo A Heresi; John R Bartholomew; Matthias A Fink; Dustin Thompson; Sasan Partovi Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2020-08-30 Impact factor: 2.357