Evangelos Tzolos1,2, Martin Lyngby Lassen1, Tinsu Pan3, Jacek Kwiecinski1,4, Sebastien Cadet1, Damini Dey1, Marc R Dweck2, David E Newby2, Daniel Berman1, Piotr Slomka5,6. 1. Department of Imaging (Division of Nuclear Medicine), Medicine, and Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 2. BHF Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. 3. Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 4. Department of Interventional Cardiology and Angiology, Institute of Cardiology, Warsaw, Poland. 5. Department of Imaging (Division of Nuclear Medicine), Medicine, and Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. piotr.slomka@cshs.org. 6. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine Program, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 8700 Beverly Blvd, Ste A047N, Los Angeles, CA, 90048, USA. piotr.slomka@cshs.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the impact of respiratory-averaged computed tomography attenuation correction (RACTAC) compared to standard single-phase computed tomography attenuation correction (CTAC) map, on the quantitative measures of coronary atherosclerotic lesions of 18F-sodium fluoride (18F-NaF) uptake in hybrid positron emission tomography and computed tomography (PET/CT). METHODS: This study comprised 23 patients who underwent 18F-NaF coronary PET in a hybrid PET/CT system. All patients had a standard single-phase CTAC obtained during free-breathing and a 4D cine-CT scan. From the cine-CT acquisition, RACTAC maps were obtained by averaging all images acquired over 5 seconds. PET reconstructions using either CTAC or RACTAC were compared. The quantitative impact of employing RACTAC was assessed using maximum target-to-background (TBRMAX) and coronary microcalcification activity (CMA). Statistical differences were analyzed using reproducibility coefficients and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: In 23 patients, we evaluated 34 coronary lesions using CTAC and RACTAC reconstructions. There was good agreement between CTAC and RACTAC for TBRMAX (median [Interquartile range]): CTAC = 1.65 [1.23 to 2.38], RACTAC = 1.63 [1.23 to 2.33], p = 0.55), with coefficient of reproducibility of 0.18, and CMA: CTAC = 0.10 [0 to 1.0], RACTAC = 0.15 [0 to 1.03], p = 0.55 with coefficient of reproducibility of 0.17 CONCLUSION: Respiratory-averaged and standard single-phase attenuation correction maps provide similar and reproducible methods of quantifying coronary 18F-NaF uptake on PET/CT.
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the impact of respiratory-averaged computed tomography attenuation correction (RACTAC) compared to standard single-phase computed tomography attenuation correction (CTAC) map, on the quantitative measures of coronary atherosclerotic lesions of 18F-sodium fluoride (18F-NaF) uptake in hybrid positron emission tomography and computed tomography (PET/CT). METHODS: This study comprised 23 patients who underwent 18F-NaF coronary PET in a hybrid PET/CT system. All patients had a standard single-phase CTAC obtained during free-breathing and a 4D cine-CT scan. From the cine-CT acquisition, RACTAC maps were obtained by averaging all images acquired over 5 seconds. PET reconstructions using either CTAC or RACTAC were compared. The quantitative impact of employing RACTAC was assessed using maximum target-to-background (TBRMAX) and coronary microcalcification activity (CMA). Statistical differences were analyzed using reproducibility coefficients and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: In 23 patients, we evaluated 34 coronary lesions using CTAC and RACTAC reconstructions. There was good agreement between CTAC and RACTAC for TBRMAX (median [Interquartile range]): CTAC = 1.65 [1.23 to 2.38], RACTAC = 1.63 [1.23 to 2.33], p = 0.55), with coefficient of reproducibility of 0.18, and CMA: CTAC = 0.10 [0 to 1.0], RACTAC = 0.15 [0 to 1.03], p = 0.55 with coefficient of reproducibility of 0.17 CONCLUSION: Respiratory-averaged and standard single-phase attenuation correction maps provide similar and reproducible methods of quantifying coronary 18F-NaF uptake on PET/CT.
Authors: Harald Fricke; Eva Fricke; Reiner Weise; Annett Kammeier; Oliver Lindner; Wolfgang Burchert Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Yuji Nakamoto; Medhat Osman; Christian Cohade; Laura T Marshall; Jonathan M Links; Steve Kohlmyer; Richard L Wahl Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 10.057
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: 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: Piotr J Slomka; Mathieu Rubeaux; Ludovic Le Meunier; Damini Dey; Joel L Lazewatsky; Tinsu Pan; Marc R Dweck; David E Newby; Guido Germano; Daniel S Berman Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-09-24 Impact factor: 10.057
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: 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
Authors: Alastair J Moss; Mhairi K Doris; Jack P M Andrews; Rong Bing; Marwa Daghem; Edwin J R van Beek; Laura Forsyth; Anoop S V Shah; Michelle C Williams; Stephanie Sellers; Jonathon Leipsic; Marc R Dweck; Richard A Parker; David E Newby; Philip D Adamson Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2019-08-06 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Martin Lyngby Lassen; Evangelos Tzolos; Daniele Massera; Sebastien Cadet; Rong Bing; Jacek Kwiecinski; Damini Dey; Daniel S Berman; Marc R Dweck; David E Newby; Piotr J Slomka Journal: EJNMMI Phys Date: 2022-01-29