René R Sevag Packard1, C David Cooke2,3, Kenneth F Van Train3, John R Votaw2, James W Sayre4, Joel L Lazewatsky5, Kelly M Champagne3, Cesare Orlandi5, Ernest V Garcia2, Jamshid Maddahi6,7. 1. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. rpackard@mednet.ucla.edu. 2. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University Hospital, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA. 3. Syntermed, Inc., Atlanta, GA, USA. 4. Department of Biostatistics, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 5. Lantheus Medical Imaging, North Billerica, MA, USA. 6. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 7. Nuclear Medicine Clinic, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Computerized methodologies standardize the myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) interpretation process. METHODS: To develop an automated relative perfusion quantitation approach for 18F-flurpiridaz, PET MPI studies from all phase III trial participants of 18F-flurpiridaz were divided into 3 groups. Count distributions were obtained in N = 40 normal patients undergoing pharmacological or exercise stress. Then, N = 90 additional studies were selected in a derivation group. Following receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, various standard deviations below the mean normal were used as cutoffs for significant CAD, and interobserver variability determined. Finally, diagnostic performance was compared between blinded visual readers and blinded derivations of automated relative quantitation in the remaining N = 548 validation patients. RESULTS: Both approaches yielded comparable accuracies for the detection of global CAD, reaching 71% and 72% by visual reads, and 72% and 68% by automated relative quantitation, when using CAD ≥ 70% or ≥ 50% stenosis for significance, respectively. Similar results were observed when analyzing individual coronary territories. In both pharmacological and exercise stress, automated relative quantitation demonstrated significantly more interobserver agreement than visual reads. CONCLUSIONS: Our automated method of 18F-flurpiridaz relative perfusion analysis provides a quantitative, objective, and highly reproducible assessment of PET MPI in normal and CAD subjects undergoing either pharmacological or exercise stress.
BACKGROUND: Computerized methodologies standardize the myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) interpretation process. METHODS: To develop an automated relative perfusion quantitation approach for 18F-flurpiridaz, PET MPI studies from all phase III trial participants of 18F-flurpiridaz were divided into 3 groups. Count distributions were obtained in N = 40 normal patients undergoing pharmacological or exercise stress. Then, N = 90 additional studies were selected in a derivation group. Following receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, various standard deviations below the mean normal were used as cutoffs for significant CAD, and interobserver variability determined. Finally, diagnostic performance was compared between blinded visual readers and blinded derivations of automated relative quantitation in the remaining N = 548 validation patients. RESULTS: Both approaches yielded comparable accuracies for the detection of global CAD, reaching 71% and 72% by visual reads, and 72% and 68% by automated relative quantitation, when using CAD ≥ 70% or ≥ 50% stenosis for significance, respectively. Similar results were observed when analyzing individual coronary territories. In both pharmacological and exercise stress, automated relative quantitation demonstrated significantly more interobserver agreement than visual reads. CONCLUSIONS: Our automated method of 18F-flurpiridaz relative perfusion analysis provides a quantitative, objective, and highly reproducible assessment of PET MPI in normal and CAD subjects undergoing either pharmacological or exercise stress.
Authors: Cesar A Santana; Russell D Folks; Ernest V Garcia; Liudmila Verdes; Rupan Sanyal; Jon Hainer; Marcelo F Di Carli; Fabio P Esteves Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-06-15 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jamshid Maddahi; Johannes Czernin; Joel Lazewatsky; Sung-Cheng Huang; Magnus Dahlbom; Heinrich Schelbert; Richard Sparks; Alexander Ehlgen; Paul Crane; Qi Zhu; Marybeth Devine; Michael Phelps Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-08-17 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Benjamin J W Chow; Sharmila Dorbala; Marcelo F Di Carli; Michael E Merhige; Brent A Williams; Emir Veledar; James K Min; Michael J Pencina; Yeung Yam; Li Chen; Sai Priya Anand; Terrence D Ruddy; Daniel S Berman; Leslee J Shaw; Rob S Beanlands Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-02-19
Authors: R J Golub; A W Ahlberg; J R McClellan; S D Herman; M I Travin; J F Mather; P W Aitken; J I Baron; G V Heller Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 1999 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Brian A Mc Ardle; Taylor F Dowsley; Robert A deKemp; George A Wells; Rob S Beanlands Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-10-03 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: John J Mahmarian; Manuel D Cerqueira; Ami E Iskandrian; Timothy M Bateman; Gregory S Thomas; Robert C Hendel; Lemuel A Moye; Ann W Olmsted Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2009-08
Authors: Timothy M Bateman; Gary V Heller; A Iain McGhie; John D Friedman; James A Case; Jan R Bryngelson; Ginger K Hertenstein; Kelly L Moutray; Kimberly Reid; S James Cullom Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2006 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Venkatesh L Murthy; Edward P Ficaro; Jonathan B Moody; Alexis Poitrasson-Rivière; Tomoe Hagio; Christopher Buckley; Richard L Weinberg; James R Corbett Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2020-01-30 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Susan Bengs; Geoffrey I Warnock; Catherine Gebhard; Ahmed Haider; Angela Portmann; Nidaa Mikail; Alexia Rossi; Hazem Ahmed; Dominik Etter; Valerie Treyer; Livio Gisler; Stefanie K Pfister; Caitlin V M L Jie; Alexander Meisel; Claudia Keller; Steven H Liang; Roger Schibli; Linjing Mu; Ronny R Buechel; Philipp A Kaufmann; Simon M Ametamey Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2022-04-28 Impact factor: 5.952