Christina Byrne1,2,3, Andreas Kjaer4,5, Naja Enevold Olsen4, Julie Lyng Forman5, Philip Hasbak4. 1. Department of Cardiology, The Heart Centre, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, 9841, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark. hsz199@alumni.ku.dk. 2. Department of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine & PET and Cluster for Molecular Imaging, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet and University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. hsz199@alumni.ku.dk. 3. Section of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. hsz199@alumni.ku.dk. 4. Department of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine & PET and Cluster for Molecular Imaging, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet and University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 5. Section of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Myocardial flow reserve (MFR) assessment with cardiac positron emission computed tomography (PET/CT) is well established, and quantification relies on commercial software packages. However, for reliable use, repeatability and reproducibility are important. The aim of this study was therefore to investigate and compare between scans and software packages the repeatability and reproducibility of 82Rb-PET/CT estimated MFR. METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty healthy volunteers completed two 82Rb-PET/CT rest and adenosine stress scans. syngo.MBF (Siemens), quantitative-gated SPECT (QGS) (Cedars-Sinai), and Corridor4DM (4DM) were used for analyses. Motion correction was available for 4DM. Fifty percent were men and age was 24 ± 4 years (mean ± SD). Repeatability of MFR varied between scans. syngo.MBF: mean difference (95% CI) 0.26 (- 0.03 to 0.54), P = 0.07, limits of agreement (LoA): - 1.43 to 1.95; QGS: 0.19 (- 0.08 to 0.46), P = 0.15, LoA: - 1.38 to 1.76; 4DM: 0.08 (- 0.17 to 0.34), P = 0.50, LoA: - 1.37 to 1.53; and 4DM motion corrected: 0.17 (- 0.17 to 0.51), P = 0.32, LoA: - 1.89 to 2.22. MFR was higher using 4DM +/- motion correction compared with syngo.MBF and QGS (all P < 0.0001). Concordance between syngo.MBF and QGS was high (P = 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: Reproducibility of MFR varied for the different software. The highest concordance between MFRs was found between syngo.MBF and QGS.
BACKGROUND: Myocardial flow reserve (MFR) assessment with cardiac positron emission computed tomography (PET/CT) is well established, and quantification relies on commercial software packages. However, for reliable use, repeatability and reproducibility are important. The aim of this study was therefore to investigate and compare between scans and software packages the repeatability and reproducibility of 82Rb-PET/CT estimated MFR. METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty healthy volunteers completed two 82Rb-PET/CT rest and adenosine stress scans. syngo.MBF (Siemens), quantitative-gated SPECT (QGS) (Cedars-Sinai), and Corridor4DM (4DM) were used for analyses. Motion correction was available for 4DM. Fifty percent were men and age was 24 ± 4 years (mean ± SD). Repeatability of MFR varied between scans. syngo.MBF: mean difference (95% CI) 0.26 (- 0.03 to 0.54), P = 0.07, limits of agreement (LoA): - 1.43 to 1.95; QGS: 0.19 (- 0.08 to 0.46), P = 0.15, LoA: - 1.38 to 1.76; 4DM: 0.08 (- 0.17 to 0.34), P = 0.50, LoA: - 1.37 to 1.53; and 4DM motion corrected: 0.17 (- 0.17 to 0.51), P = 0.32, LoA: - 1.89 to 2.22. MFR was higher using 4DM +/- motion correction compared with syngo.MBF and QGS (all P < 0.0001). Concordance between syngo.MBF and QGS was high (P = 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: Reproducibility of MFR varied for the different software. The highest concordance between MFRs was found between syngo.MBF and QGS.
Authors: Franz-Josef Neumann; Miguel Sousa-Uva; Anders Ahlsson; Fernando Alfonso; Adrian P Banning; Umberto Benedetto; Robert A Byrne; Jean-Philippe Collet; Volkmar Falk; Stuart J Head; Peter Jüni; Adnan Kastrati; Akos Koller; Steen D Kristensen; Josef Niebauer; Dimitrios J Richter; Petar M Seferovic; Dirk Sibbing; Giulio G Stefanini; Stephan Windecker; Rashmi Yadav; Michael O Zembala Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2019-01-07 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Edward P Ficaro; Venkatesh L Murthy; Benjamin C Lee; Jonathan B Moody; Alexis Poitrasson-Rivière; Amanda C Melvin; Richard L Weinberg; James R Corbett Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Yang Zuo; Ramsey D Badawi; Cameron C Foster; Thomas Smith; Javier E López; Guobao Wang Journal: IEEE Trans Radiat Plasma Med Sci Date: 2020-10-15
Authors: Edward P Ficaro; Venkatesh L Murthy; Jennifer M Renaud; Alexis Poitrasson-Rivière; Tomoe Hagio; Jonathan B Moody; Liliana Arida-Moody Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2021-08-23 Impact factor: 3.872
Authors: Martin Lyngby Lassen; Christina Byrne; Majid Sheykhzade; Mads Wissenberg; Preetee Kapisha Hurry; Anne Vibeke Schmedes; Andreas Kjaer; Philip Hasbak Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-07-08 Impact factor: 10.057