BACKGROUND: We assessed the feasibility of utilizing previously acquired computed tomography angiography (CTA) with subsequent positron-emission tomography (PET)-only scan for the quantitative evaluation of 18F-NaF PET coronary uptake. METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty-five patients (age 67.1±6.9 years; 76% males) underwent CTA (CTA1) and combined 18F-NaF PET/CTA (CTA2) imaging within 14 [10, 21] days. We fused CTA1 from visit 1 with 18F-NaF PET (PET) from visit 2 and compared visual pattern of activity, maximal standard uptake (SUVmax) values, and target to background ratio (TBR) measurements on (PET/CTA1) fused versus hybrid (PET/CTA2). On PET/CTA2, 226 coronary plaques were identified. Fifty-eight coronary segments from 28 (62%) patients had high 18F-NaF uptake (TBR >1.25), whereas 168 segments had lesions with 18F-NaF TBR ≤1.25. Uptake in all lesions was categorized identically on coregistered PET/CTA1. There was no significant difference in 18F-NaF uptake values between PET/CTA1 and PET/CTA2 (SUVmax, 1.16±0.40 versus 1.15±0.39; P=0.53; TBR, 1.10±0.45 versus 1.09±0.46; P=0.55). The intraclass correlation coefficient for SUVmax and TBR was 0.987 (95% CI, 0.983-0.991) and 0.986 (95% CI, 0.981-0.992). There was no fixed or proportional bias between PET/CTA1 and PET/CTA2 for SUVmax and TBR. Cardiac motion correction of PET scans improved reproducibility with tighter 95% limits of agreement (±0.14 for SUVmax and ±0.15 for TBR versus ±0.20 and ±0.20 on diastolic imaging; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Coronary CTA/PET protocol with CTA first followed by PET-only allows for reliable and reproducible quantification of 18F-NaF coronary uptake. This approach may facilitate selection of high-risk patients for PET-only imaging based on results from prior CTA, providing a practical workflow for clinical application.
BACKGROUND: We assessed the feasibility of utilizing previously acquired computed tomography angiography (CTA) with subsequent positron-emission tomography (PET)-only scan for the quantitative evaluation of 18F-NaF PET coronary uptake. METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty-five patients (age 67.1±6.9 years; 76% males) underwent CTA (CTA1) and combined 18F-NaF PET/CTA (CTA2) imaging within 14 [10, 21] days. We fused CTA1 from visit 1 with 18F-NaF PET (PET) from visit 2 and compared visual pattern of activity, maximal standard uptake (SUVmax) values, and target to background ratio (TBR) measurements on (PET/CTA1) fused versus hybrid (PET/CTA2). On PET/CTA2, 226 coronary plaques were identified. Fifty-eight coronary segments from 28 (62%) patients had high 18F-NaF uptake (TBR >1.25), whereas 168 segments had lesions with 18F-NaF TBR ≤1.25. Uptake in all lesions was categorized identically on coregistered PET/CTA1. There was no significant difference in 18F-NaF uptake values between PET/CTA1 and PET/CTA2 (SUVmax, 1.16±0.40 versus 1.15±0.39; P=0.53; TBR, 1.10±0.45 versus 1.09±0.46; P=0.55). The intraclass correlation coefficient for SUVmax and TBR was 0.987 (95% CI, 0.983-0.991) and 0.986 (95% CI, 0.981-0.992). There was no fixed or proportional bias between PET/CTA1 and PET/CTA2 for SUVmax and TBR. Cardiac motion correction of PET scans improved reproducibility with tighter 95% limits of agreement (±0.14 for SUVmax and ±0.15 for TBR versus ±0.20 and ±0.20 on diastolic imaging; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Coronary CTA/PET protocol with CTA first followed by PET-only allows for reliable and reproducible quantification of 18F-NaF coronary uptake. This approach may facilitate selection of high-risk patients for PET-only imaging based on results from prior CTA, providing a practical workflow for clinical application.
Authors: Andrew J Einstein; Carl D Elliston; Andrew E Arai; Marcus Y Chen; Richard Mather; Gregory D N Pearson; Robert L Delapaz; Edward Nickoloff; Ajoy Dutta; David J Brenner Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Nitesh Nerlekar; Francis J Ha; Caitlin Cheshire; Hashrul Rashid; James D Cameron; Dennis T Wong; Sujith Seneviratne; Adam J Brown Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Marc R Dweck; Marcus W L Chow; Nikhil V Joshi; Michelle C Williams; Charlotte Jones; Alison M Fletcher; Hamish Richardson; Audrey White; Graham McKillop; Edwin J R van Beek; Nicholas A Boon; James H F Rudd; David E Newby Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-04-24 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Mhairi K Doris; Yuka Otaki; Sandeep K Krishnan; Jacek Kwiecinski; Mathieu Rubeaux; Adam Alessio; Tinsu Pan; Sebastien Cadet; Damini Dey; Marc R Dweck; David E Newby; Daniel S Berman; Piotr J Slomka Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2018-06-11 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Mathieu Rubeaux; Nikhil V Joshi; Marc R Dweck; Alison Fletcher; Manish Motwani; Louise E Thomson; Guido Germano; Damini Dey; Debiao Li; Daniel S Berman; David E Newby; Piotr J Slomka Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-10-15 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jason M Tarkin; Francis R Joshi; Nicholas R Evans; Mohammed M Chowdhury; Nichola L Figg; Aarti V Shah; Lakshi T Starks; Abel Martin-Garrido; Roido Manavaki; Emma Yu; Rhoda E Kuc; Luigi Grassi; Roman Kreuzhuber; Myrto A Kostadima; Mattia Frontini; Peter J Kirkpatrick; Patrick A Coughlin; Deepa Gopalan; Tim D Fryer; John R Buscombe; Ashley M Groves; Willem H Ouwehand; Martin R Bennett; Elizabeth A Warburton; Anthony P Davenport; James H F Rudd Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2017-04-11 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Nikhil V Joshi; Alex T Vesey; Michelle C Williams; Anoop S V Shah; Patrick A Calvert; Felicity H M Craighead; Su Ern Yeoh; William Wallace; Donald Salter; Alison M Fletcher; Edwin J R van Beek; Andrew D Flapan; Neal G Uren; Miles W H Behan; Nicholas L M Cruden; Nicholas L Mills; Keith A A Fox; James H F Rudd; Marc R Dweck; David E Newby Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-11-11 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ananya Singh; Jacek Kwiecinski; Sebastien Cadet; Aditya Killekar; Evangelos Tzolos; Michelle C Williams; Marc R Dweck; David E Newby; Damini Dey; Piotr J Slomka Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2022-06-14 Impact factor: 5.952
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: Evangelos Tzolos; Martin Lyngby Lassen; Tinsu Pan; Jacek Kwiecinski; Sebastien Cadet; Damini Dey; Marc R Dweck; David E Newby; Daniel Berman; Piotr Slomka Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2020-07-02 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Piotr J Slomka; Jonathan B Moody; Robert J H Miller; Jennifer M Renaud; Edward P Ficaro; Ernest V Garcia Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2020-10-16 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Jamie W Bellinge; Roslyn J Francis; Sing Ching Lee; Alistair Vickery; William Macdonald; Seng Khee Gan; Gerard T Chew; Michael Phillips; Joshua R Lewis; Gerald F Watts; Carl J Schultz Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2021-04-06 Impact factor: 3.872
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: Evangelos Tzolos; Jacek Kwiecinski; Martin Lyngby Lassen; Sebastien Cadet; Philip D Adamson; Alastair J Moss; Nikhil Joshi; Michelle C Williams; Edwin J R van Beek; Damini Dey; Daniel S Berman; Marc R Dweck; David E Newby; Piotr J Slomka Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2020-06-11 Impact factor: 5.952