Jonny Nordström1,2, Elin Lindström3,4, Tanja Kero5, Jens Sörensen1,5, Mark Lubberink1,6. 1. Nuclear Medicine and PET, Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. 2. Centre for Research and Development, Uppsala/Gävleborg County, Gävle, Sweden. 3. Nuclear Medicine and PET, Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. elin.lindstrom@surgsci.uu.se. 4. Medical Physics, Uppsala University Hospital, 75185, Uppsala, Sweden. elin.lindstrom@surgsci.uu.se. 5. PET Center, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden. 6. Medical Physics, Uppsala University Hospital, 75185, Uppsala, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The impact on quantitative 15O-water PET/CT of a wide range of different reconstruction settings, including regularized reconstruction by block-sequential regularized expectation maximization (BSREM), was investigated. METHODS: Twenty clinical stress scans from patients referred for assessment of myocardial ischemia were included. Patients underwent a 4-min dynamic stress PET scan with 15O-water on a digital PET/CT scanner. Twenty-two reconstructions were generated from each scan and a clinical reconstruction was used as reference. Varied parameters were number of iterations, filter, exclusion of time-of-flight and point-spread function, and regularization parameter with BSREM. Analyses were performed in aQuant utilizing two different methods and resulting regional myocardial blood flow (MBF), perfusable tissue fraction (PTF), and transmural MBF (MBFt) values were evaluated. RESULTS: Across the two analyses, correlations toward the reference reconstruction were strong for all parameters (ρ ≥ 0.83). Using automated analysis and the diagnostic threshold of hyperemic MBF at 2.3 mL⋅g-1⋅min-1, diagnosis was unchanged irrespective of reconstruction method in all patients except for one, where only four of the most extreme reconstruction methods resulted in a change of diagnosis. CONCLUSION: The low sensitivity of MBF values to reconstruction method and, as previously shown, scanner type and PET/CT misalignment, confirms that diagnostic hyperemic MBF cutoff values can be consistently used for 15O-water.
BACKGROUND: The impact on quantitative 15O-water PET/CT of a wide range of different reconstruction settings, including regularized reconstruction by block-sequential regularized expectation maximization (BSREM), was investigated. METHODS: Twenty clinical stress scans from patients referred for assessment of myocardial ischemia were included. Patients underwent a 4-min dynamic stress PET scan with 15O-water on a digital PET/CT scanner. Twenty-two reconstructions were generated from each scan and a clinical reconstruction was used as reference. Varied parameters were number of iterations, filter, exclusion of time-of-flight and point-spread function, and regularization parameter with BSREM. Analyses were performed in aQuant utilizing two different methods and resulting regional myocardial blood flow (MBF), perfusable tissue fraction (PTF), and transmural MBF (MBFt) values were evaluated. RESULTS: Across the two analyses, correlations toward the reference reconstruction were strong for all parameters (ρ ≥ 0.83). Using automated analysis and the diagnostic threshold of hyperemic MBF at 2.3 mL⋅g-1⋅min-1, diagnosis was unchanged irrespective of reconstruction method in all patients except for one, where only four of the most extreme reconstruction methods resulted in a change of diagnosis. CONCLUSION: The low sensitivity of MBF values to reconstruction method and, as previously shown, scanner type and PET/CT misalignment, confirms that diagnostic hyperemic MBF cutoff values can be consistently used for 15O-water.
Authors: Klaus P Schäfers; Terence J Spinks; Paolo G Camici; Peter M Bloomfield; Christopher G Rhodes; Marilyn P Law; Christopher S R Baker; Ornella Rimoldi Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: S Kajander; E Joutsiniemi; M Saraste; M Pietilä; H Ukkonen; A Saraste; H T Sipilä; M Teräs; M Mäki; J Airaksinen; J Hartiala; J Knuuti Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-07-26 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Venkatesh L Murthy; Masanao Naya; Courtney R Foster; Jon Hainer; Mariya Gaber; Gilda Di Carli; Ron Blankstein; Sharmila Dorbala; Arkadiusz Sitek; Michael J Pencina; Marcelo F Di Carli Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-10-17 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Ibrahim Danad; Pieter G Raijmakers; Roel S Driessen; Jonathon Leipsic; Rekha Raju; Chris Naoum; Juhani Knuuti; Maija Mäki; Richard S Underwood; James K Min; Kimberly Elmore; Wynand J Stuijfzand; Niels van Royen; Igor I Tulevski; Aernout G Somsen; Marc C Huisman; Arthur A van Lingen; Martijn W Heymans; Peter M van de Ven; Cornelis van Kuijk; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Albert C van Rossum; Paul Knaapen Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Ibrahim Danad; Valtteri Uusitalo; Tanja Kero; Antti Saraste; Pieter G Raijmakers; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Martijn W Heymans; Sami A Kajander; Mikko Pietilä; Stefan James; Jens Sörensen; Paul Knaapen; Juhani Knuuti Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-10-07 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Edward P Ficaro; Venkatesh L Murthy; Alexis Poitrasson-Rivière; Jonathan B Moody; Jennifer M Renaud; Tomoe Hagio; Liliana Arida-Moody; Christopher Buckley; Richard L Weinberg Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2021-11-15 Impact factor: 3.872
Authors: L I Araujo; A A Lammertsma; C G Rhodes; E O McFalls; H Iida; E Rechavia; A Galassi; R De Silva; T Jones; A Maseri Journal: Circulation Date: 1991-03 Impact factor: 29.690