Cargando…

Pitfalls in quantitative myocardial PET perfusion I: Myocardial partial volume correction

BACKGROUND: PET quantitative myocardial perfusion requires correction for partial volume loss due to one-dimensional LV wall thickness smaller than scanner resolution. METHODS: We aimed to assess accuracy of risk stratification for death, MI, or revascularization after PET using partial volume corre...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lance Gould, K., Bui, Linh, Kitkungvan, Danai, Pan, Tinsu, Roby, Amanda E., Nguyen, Tung T., Johnson, Nils P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7174249/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32095938
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12350-020-02073-9
_version_ 1783524597091532800
author Lance Gould, K.
Bui, Linh
Kitkungvan, Danai
Pan, Tinsu
Roby, Amanda E.
Nguyen, Tung T.
Johnson, Nils P.
author_facet Lance Gould, K.
Bui, Linh
Kitkungvan, Danai
Pan, Tinsu
Roby, Amanda E.
Nguyen, Tung T.
Johnson, Nils P.
author_sort Lance Gould, K.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: PET quantitative myocardial perfusion requires correction for partial volume loss due to one-dimensional LV wall thickness smaller than scanner resolution. METHODS: We aimed to assess accuracy of risk stratification for death, MI, or revascularization after PET using partial volume corrections derived from two-dimensional ACR and three-dimensional NEMA phantoms for 3987 diagnostic rest–stress perfusion PETs and 187 MACE events. NEMA, ACR, and Tree phantoms were imaged with Rb-82 or F-18 for size-dependent partial volume loss. Perfusion and Coronary Flow Capacity were recalculated using different ACR- and NEMA-derived partial volume corrections compared by Kolmogorov–Smirnov statistics to standard perfusion metrics with established correlations with MACE. RESULTS: Partial volume corrections based on two-dimensional ACR rods (two equal radii) and three-dimensional NEMA spheres (three equal radii) over estimate partial volume corrections, quantitative perfusion, and Coronary Flow Capacity by 50% to 150% over perfusion metrics with one-dimensional partial volume correction, thereby substantially impairing correct risk stratification. CONCLUSIONS: ACR (2-dimensional) and NEMA (3-dimensional) phantoms overestimate partial volume corrections for 1-dimensional LV wall thickness and myocardial perfusion that are corrected with a simple equation that correlates with MACE for optimal risk stratification applicable to most PET-CT scanners for quantifying myocardial perfusion. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s12350-020-02073-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7174249
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71742492020-04-23 Pitfalls in quantitative myocardial PET perfusion I: Myocardial partial volume correction Lance Gould, K. Bui, Linh Kitkungvan, Danai Pan, Tinsu Roby, Amanda E. Nguyen, Tung T. Johnson, Nils P. J Nucl Cardiol Original Article BACKGROUND: PET quantitative myocardial perfusion requires correction for partial volume loss due to one-dimensional LV wall thickness smaller than scanner resolution. METHODS: We aimed to assess accuracy of risk stratification for death, MI, or revascularization after PET using partial volume corrections derived from two-dimensional ACR and three-dimensional NEMA phantoms for 3987 diagnostic rest–stress perfusion PETs and 187 MACE events. NEMA, ACR, and Tree phantoms were imaged with Rb-82 or F-18 for size-dependent partial volume loss. Perfusion and Coronary Flow Capacity were recalculated using different ACR- and NEMA-derived partial volume corrections compared by Kolmogorov–Smirnov statistics to standard perfusion metrics with established correlations with MACE. RESULTS: Partial volume corrections based on two-dimensional ACR rods (two equal radii) and three-dimensional NEMA spheres (three equal radii) over estimate partial volume corrections, quantitative perfusion, and Coronary Flow Capacity by 50% to 150% over perfusion metrics with one-dimensional partial volume correction, thereby substantially impairing correct risk stratification. CONCLUSIONS: ACR (2-dimensional) and NEMA (3-dimensional) phantoms overestimate partial volume corrections for 1-dimensional LV wall thickness and myocardial perfusion that are corrected with a simple equation that correlates with MACE for optimal risk stratification applicable to most PET-CT scanners for quantifying myocardial perfusion. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s12350-020-02073-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer International Publishing 2020-02-24 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7174249/ /pubmed/32095938 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12350-020-02073-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Original Article
Lance Gould, K.
Bui, Linh
Kitkungvan, Danai
Pan, Tinsu
Roby, Amanda E.
Nguyen, Tung T.
Johnson, Nils P.
Pitfalls in quantitative myocardial PET perfusion I: Myocardial partial volume correction
title Pitfalls in quantitative myocardial PET perfusion I: Myocardial partial volume correction
title_full Pitfalls in quantitative myocardial PET perfusion I: Myocardial partial volume correction
title_fullStr Pitfalls in quantitative myocardial PET perfusion I: Myocardial partial volume correction
title_full_unstemmed Pitfalls in quantitative myocardial PET perfusion I: Myocardial partial volume correction
title_short Pitfalls in quantitative myocardial PET perfusion I: Myocardial partial volume correction
title_sort pitfalls in quantitative myocardial pet perfusion i: myocardial partial volume correction
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7174249/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32095938
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12350-020-02073-9
work_keys_str_mv AT lancegouldk pitfallsinquantitativemyocardialpetperfusionimyocardialpartialvolumecorrection
AT builinh pitfallsinquantitativemyocardialpetperfusionimyocardialpartialvolumecorrection
AT kitkungvandanai pitfallsinquantitativemyocardialpetperfusionimyocardialpartialvolumecorrection
AT pantinsu pitfallsinquantitativemyocardialpetperfusionimyocardialpartialvolumecorrection
AT robyamandae pitfallsinquantitativemyocardialpetperfusionimyocardialpartialvolumecorrection
AT nguyentungt pitfallsinquantitativemyocardialpetperfusionimyocardialpartialvolumecorrection
AT johnsonnilsp pitfallsinquantitativemyocardialpetperfusionimyocardialpartialvolumecorrection