Literature DB >> 9098221

Consequences of using a simplified kinetic model for dynamic PET data.

P G Coxson1, R H Huesman, L Borland.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: We compared a physiological model of 82Rb kinetics in the myocardium with two reduced-order models to determine their usefulness in assessing physiological parameters from dynamic PET data.
METHODS: A three-compartment model of 82Rb in the myocardium was used to simulate kinetic PET ROI data. Simulations were generated for eight different blood-flow rates reflecting the physiological range of interest. Two reduced-order models commonly used with myocardial PET studies were fit to the simulated data, and parameters of the reduced-order models were compared with the physiological parameters. Then all three models were fit to the simulated data with noise added. Monte Carlo simulations were used to evaluate and compare the diagnostic utility of the reduced-order models. A description length criterion was used to assess goodness of fit for each model. Finally, fits to simulated data were compared with fits to actual dynamic PET data.
RESULTS: Fits of the reduced-order models to the three-compartment model noise-free simulated data produced model misspecification artifacts, such as flow parameter bias and systematic variation with flow in estimates of nonflow parameters. Monte Carlo simulations showed some of the parameter estimates for the two-compartment model to be highly variable at PET noise levels. Fits to actual PET data showed similar variability. One-compartment model estimates of the flow parameter at high and low flow were separated by several s.d.s for both the simulated and the real data. With the two-compartment model, the separation was about one s.d., making it difficult to differentiate a high and a low flow in a single experiment. Fixing nonflow parameters reduced flow parameter variability in the two-compartment model and did not significantly affect variability in the one-compartment model. Goodness of fit indicated that, at realistic noise levels, both reduced-order models fit the simulated data at least as well as the three-compartment model that generated the data.
CONCLUSION: The one-compartment reduced-order model of 82Rb dynamic PET data can be used effectively to compare myocardial blood-flow rates at rest and stress levels. The two-compartment model can differentiate flow only if a priori values are used for nonflow parameters.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9098221

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nucl Med        ISSN: 0161-5505            Impact factor:   10.057


  21 in total

Review 1.  Dynamic single photon emission computed tomography--basic principles and cardiac applications.

Authors:  Grant T Gullberg; Bryan W Reutter; Arkadiusz Sitek; Jonathan S Maltz; Thomas F Budinger
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2010-09-22       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 2.  Clinical use of quantitative cardiac perfusion PET: rationale, modalities and possible indications. Position paper of the Cardiovascular Committee of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM).

Authors:  Roberto Sciagrà; Alessandro Passeri; Jan Bucerius; Hein J Verberne; Riemer H J A Slart; Oliver Lindner; Alessia Gimelli; Fabien Hyafil; Denis Agostini; Christopher Übleis; Marcus Hacker
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2016-02-05       Impact factor: 9.236

3.  Analysis of penalized likelihood image reconstruction for dynamic PET quantification.

Authors:  Guobao Wang; Jinyi Qi
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2009-02-10       Impact factor: 10.048

Review 4.  Precision and accuracy of clinical quantification of myocardial blood flow by dynamic PET: A technical perspective.

Authors:  Jonathan B Moody; Benjamin C Lee; James R Corbett; Edward P Ficaro; Venkatesh L Murthy
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2015-04-14       Impact factor: 5.952

5.  The role of acquisition and quantification methods in myocardial blood flow estimability for myocardial perfusion imaging CT.

Authors:  Brendan L Eck; Raymond F Muzic; Jacob Levi; Hao Wu; Rachid Fahmi; Yuemeng Li; Anas Fares; Mani Vembar; Amar Dhanantwari; Hiram G Bezerra; David L Wilson
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2018-09-13       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  Myocardial perfusion models: a means or an end?

Authors:  Nils P Johnson; K Lance Gould
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 5.952

7.  Properties of noise in positron emission tomography images reconstructed with filtered-backprojection and row-action maximum likelihood algorithm.

Authors:  A Teymurazyan; T Riauka; H-S Jans; D Robinson
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 4.056

8.  Quantitation of myocardial blood flow and myocardial flow reserve with 99mTc-sestamibi dynamic SPECT/CT to enhance detection of coronary artery disease.

Authors:  Bailing Hsu; Fu-Chung Chen; Tao-Cheng Wu; Wen-Sheng Huang; Po-Nien Hou; Chien-Cheng Chen; Guang-Uei Hung
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2014-08-21       Impact factor: 9.236

9.  Cardiac-gated parametric images from 82 Rb PET from dynamic frames and direct 4D reconstruction.

Authors:  Mary Germino; Richard E Carson
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2017-12-30       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  Quantification of myocardial blood flow with 82Rb positron emission tomography: clinical validation with 15O-water.

Authors:  John O Prior; Gilles Allenbach; Ines Valenta; Marek Kosinski; Cyrill Burger; Francis R Verdun; Angelika Bischof Delaloye; Philipp A Kaufmann
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2012-03-08       Impact factor: 9.236

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.