Daniele Massera1, Mhairi K Doris2, Sebastien Cadet3, Jacek Kwiecinski2,3, Tania A Pawade2, Frederique E C M Peeters4, Damini Dey3, David E Newby2, Marc R Dweck2, Piotr J Slomka5. 1. Leon H. Charney Division of Cardiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA. 2. BHF Centre for Cardiovascular Science, Clinical Research Imaging Centre, Edinburgh Heart Centre, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. 3. Department of Imaging, Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 8700 Beverly Blvd, Ste A047 N, Los Angeles, CA, 90048, USA. 4. Department of Cardiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Imaging, Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 8700 Beverly Blvd, Ste A047 N, Los Angeles, CA, 90048, USA. piotr.slomka@cshs.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Challenges to cardiac PET-CT include patient motion, prolonged image acquisition and a reduction of counts due to gating. We compared two analytical tools, FusionQuant and OsiriX, for quantification of gated cardiac 18F-sodium fluoride (18F-fluoride) PET-CT imaging. METHODS: Twenty-seven patients with aortic stenosis were included, 15 of whom underwent repeated imaging 4 weeks apart. Agreement between analytical tools and scan-rescan reproducibility was determined using the Bland-Altman method and Lin's concordance correlation coefficients (CCC). RESULTS: Image analysis was faster with FusionQuant [median time (IQR) 7:10 (6:40-8:20) minutes] compared with OsiriX [8:30 (8:00-10:10) minutes, p = .002]. Agreement of uptake measurements between programs was excellent, CCC = 0.972 (95% CI 0.949-0.995) for mean tissue-to-background ratio (TBRmean) and 0.981 (95% CI 0.965-0.997) for maximum tissue-to-background ratio (TBRmax). Mean noise decreased from 11.7% in the diastolic gate to 6.7% in motion-corrected images (p = .002); SNR increased from 25.41 to 41.13 (p = .0001). Aortic valve scan-rescan reproducibility for TBRmax was improved with FusionQuant using motion correction compared to OsiriX (error ± 36% vs ± 13%, p < .001) while reproducibility for TBRmean was similar (± 10% vs ± 8% p = .252). CONCLUSION: 18F-fluoride PET quantification with FusionQuant and OsiriX is comparable. FusionQuant with motion correction offers advantages with respect to analysis time and reproducibility of TBRmax values.
BACKGROUND: Challenges to cardiac PET-CT include patient motion, prolonged image acquisition and a reduction of counts due to gating. We compared two analytical tools, FusionQuant and OsiriX, for quantification of gated cardiac 18F-sodium fluoride (18F-fluoride) PET-CT imaging. METHODS: Twenty-seven patients with aortic stenosis were included, 15 of whom underwent repeated imaging 4 weeks apart. Agreement between analytical tools and scan-rescan reproducibility was determined using the Bland-Altman method and Lin's concordance correlation coefficients (CCC). RESULTS: Image analysis was faster with FusionQuant [median time (IQR) 7:10 (6:40-8:20) minutes] compared with OsiriX [8:30 (8:00-10:10) minutes, p = .002]. Agreement of uptake measurements between programs was excellent, CCC = 0.972 (95% CI 0.949-0.995) for mean tissue-to-background ratio (TBRmean) and 0.981 (95% CI 0.965-0.997) for maximum tissue-to-background ratio (TBRmax). Mean noise decreased from 11.7% in the diastolic gate to 6.7% in motion-corrected images (p = .002); SNR increased from 25.41 to 41.13 (p = .0001). Aortic valve scan-rescan reproducibility for TBRmax was improved with FusionQuant using motion correction compared to OsiriX (error ± 36% vs ± 13%, p < .001) while reproducibility for TBRmean was similar (± 10% vs ± 8% p = .252). CONCLUSION: 18F-fluoride PET quantification with FusionQuant and OsiriX is comparable. FusionQuant with motion correction offers advantages with respect to analysis time and reproducibility of TBRmax values.
Authors: Ludovic Le Meunier; Piotr J Slomka; Damini Dey; Amit Ramesh; Louis E J Thomson; Sean W Hayes; John D Friedman; Victor Cheng; Guido Germano; Daniel S Berman Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2010-02-12 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Stephanie Marchesseau; Aruni Seneviratna; A Therese Sjöholm; Daphne Liang Qin; Jamie X M Ho; Derek J Hausenloy; David W Townsend; A Mark Richards; John J Totman; Mark Y Y Chan Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2017-05-12 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Marc Richard Dweck; Charlotte Jones; Nikhil V Joshi; Alison M Fletcher; Hamish Richardson; Audrey White; Mark Marsden; Renzo Pessotto; John C Clark; William A Wallace; Donald M Salter; Graham McKillop; Edwin J R van Beek; Nicholas A Boon; James H F Rudd; David E Newby Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-11-16 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Mathieu Rubeaux; Nikhil Joshi; Marc R Dweck; Alison Fletcher; Manish Motwani; Louise E Thomson; Guido Germano; Damini Dey; Daniel S Berman; David E Newby; Piotr J Slomka Journal: Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng Date: 2016-03-21
Authors: Marc R Dweck; H J Khaw; G K Z Sng; E L C Luo; A Baird; M C Williams; P Makiello; S Mirsadraee; N V Joshi; E J R van Beek; N A Boon; J H F Rudd; D E Newby Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2013-02-07 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Agnese Irkle; Alex T Vesey; David Y Lewis; Jeremy N Skepper; Joseph L E Bird; Marc R Dweck; Francis R Joshi; Ferdia A Gallagher; Elizabeth A Warburton; Martin R Bennett; Kevin M Brindle; David E Newby; James H Rudd; Anthony P Davenport Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2015-07-07 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Samuel Debono; Jennifer Nash; Alexander J Fletcher; Maaz B J Syed; Scott I Semple; Edwin J R van Beek; Alison Fletcher; Sebastien Cadet; Michelle C Williams; Damini Dey; Piotr J Slomka; Rachael O Forsythe; Marc R Dweck; David E Newby Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2022-06-06 Impact factor: 3.434
Authors: Jacek Kwiecinski; Damini Dey; Sebastien Cadet; Sang-Eun Lee; Balaji Tamarappoo; Yuka Otaki; Phi T Huynh; John D Friedman; Mark R Dweck; David E Newby; Mijin Yun; Hyuk-Jae Chang; Piotr J Slomka; Daniel S Berman Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2020-01-01 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Jacek Kwiecinski; Evangelos Tzolos; Philip D Adamson; Sebastien Cadet; Alastair J Moss; Nikhil Joshi; Michelle C Williams; Edwin J R van Beek; Damini Dey; Daniel S Berman; David E Newby; Piotr J Slomka; Marc R Dweck Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2020-06-23 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Jacek Kwiecinski; Evangelos Tzolos; Mohammed N Meah; Sebastien Cadet; Philip D Adamson; Kajetan Grodecki; Nikhil V Joshi; Alastair J Moss; Michelle C Williams; Edwin J R van Beek; Daniel S Berman; David E Newby; Damini Dey; Marc R Dweck; Piotr J Slomka Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-04-23 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Martin Lyngby Lassen; Jacek Kwiecinski; Damini Dey; Sebastien Cadet; Guido Germano; Daniel S Berman; Philip D Adamson; Alastair J Moss; Marc R Dweck; David E Newby; Piotr J Slomka Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-08-05 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Jacek Kwiecinski; Sebastien Cadet; Marwa Daghem; Martin L Lassen; Damini Dey; Marc R Dweck; Daniel S Berman; David E Newby; Piotr J Slomka Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-01-02 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Tania A Pawade; Mhairi K Doris; Rong Bing; Audrey C White; Laura Forsyth; Emily Evans; Catriona Graham; Michelle C Williams; Edwin J R van Beek; Alison Fletcher; Philip D Adamson; Jack P M Andrews; Timothy R G Cartlidge; William S A Jenkins; Maaz Syed; Takeshi Fujisawa; Christophe Lucatelli; William Fraser; Stuart H Ralston; Nicholas Boon; Bernard Prendergast; David E Newby; Marc R Dweck Journal: Circulation Date: 2021-04-29 Impact factor: 29.690