Cargando…

Cardiovascular (18)F-fluoride positron emission tomography-magnetic resonance imaging: A comparison study

BACKGROUND: (18)F-Fluoride uptake denotes calcification activity in aortic stenosis and atherosclerosis. While PET/MR has several advantages over PET/CT, attenuation correction of PET/MR data is challenging, limiting cardiovascular application. We compared PET/MR and PET/CT assessments of (18)F-fluo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Andrews, Jack P. M., MacNaught, Gillian, Moss, Alastair J., Doris, Mhairi K., Pawade, Tania, Adamson, Philip D., van Beek, Edwin J. R., Lucatelli, Christophe, Lassen, Martin L., Robson, Philip M., Fayad, Zahi A., Kwiecinski, Jacek, Slomka, Piotr J., Berman, Daniel S., Newby, David E., Dweck, Marc R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8616877/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31792913
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12350-019-01962-y
_version_ 1784604424196325376
author Andrews, Jack P. M.
MacNaught, Gillian
Moss, Alastair J.
Doris, Mhairi K.
Pawade, Tania
Adamson, Philip D.
van Beek, Edwin J. R.
Lucatelli, Christophe
Lassen, Martin L.
Robson, Philip M.
Fayad, Zahi A.
Kwiecinski, Jacek
Slomka, Piotr J.
Berman, Daniel S.
Newby, David E.
Dweck, Marc R.
author_facet Andrews, Jack P. M.
MacNaught, Gillian
Moss, Alastair J.
Doris, Mhairi K.
Pawade, Tania
Adamson, Philip D.
van Beek, Edwin J. R.
Lucatelli, Christophe
Lassen, Martin L.
Robson, Philip M.
Fayad, Zahi A.
Kwiecinski, Jacek
Slomka, Piotr J.
Berman, Daniel S.
Newby, David E.
Dweck, Marc R.
author_sort Andrews, Jack P. M.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: (18)F-Fluoride uptake denotes calcification activity in aortic stenosis and atherosclerosis. While PET/MR has several advantages over PET/CT, attenuation correction of PET/MR data is challenging, limiting cardiovascular application. We compared PET/MR and PET/CT assessments of (18)F-fluoride uptake in the aortic valve and coronary arteries. METHODS AND RESULTS: 18 patients with aortic stenosis or recent myocardial infarction underwent (18)F-fluoride PET/CT followed immediately by PET/MR. Valve and coronary (18)F-fluoride uptake were evaluated independently. Both standard (Dixon) and novel radial GRE) MR attenuation correction (AC) maps were validated against PET/CT with results expressed as tissue-to-background ratios (TBRs). Visually, aortic valve (18)F-fluoride uptake was similar on PET/CT and PET/MR. TBR(MAX) values were comparable with radial GRE AC (PET/CT 1.55±0.33 vs. PET/MR 1.58 ± 0.34, P = 0.66; 95% limits of agreement − 27% to + 25%) but performed less well with Dixon AC (1.38 ± 0.44, P = 0.06; bias (−)14%; 95% limits of agreement − 25% to + 53%). In native coronaries, (18)F-fluoride uptake was similar on PET/MR to PET/CT regardless of AC approach. PET/MR identified 28/29 plaques identified on PET/CT; however, stents caused artifact on PET/MR making assessment of (18)F-fluoride uptake challenging. CONCLUSION: Cardiovascular PET/MR demonstrates good visual and quantitative agreement with PET/CT. However, PET/MR is hampered by stent-related artifacts currently limiting clinical application. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s12350-019-01962-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8616877
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86168772021-12-01 Cardiovascular (18)F-fluoride positron emission tomography-magnetic resonance imaging: A comparison study Andrews, Jack P. M. MacNaught, Gillian Moss, Alastair J. Doris, Mhairi K. Pawade, Tania Adamson, Philip D. van Beek, Edwin J. R. Lucatelli, Christophe Lassen, Martin L. Robson, Philip M. Fayad, Zahi A. Kwiecinski, Jacek Slomka, Piotr J. Berman, Daniel S. Newby, David E. Dweck, Marc R. J Nucl Cardiol Original Article BACKGROUND: (18)F-Fluoride uptake denotes calcification activity in aortic stenosis and atherosclerosis. While PET/MR has several advantages over PET/CT, attenuation correction of PET/MR data is challenging, limiting cardiovascular application. We compared PET/MR and PET/CT assessments of (18)F-fluoride uptake in the aortic valve and coronary arteries. METHODS AND RESULTS: 18 patients with aortic stenosis or recent myocardial infarction underwent (18)F-fluoride PET/CT followed immediately by PET/MR. Valve and coronary (18)F-fluoride uptake were evaluated independently. Both standard (Dixon) and novel radial GRE) MR attenuation correction (AC) maps were validated against PET/CT with results expressed as tissue-to-background ratios (TBRs). Visually, aortic valve (18)F-fluoride uptake was similar on PET/CT and PET/MR. TBR(MAX) values were comparable with radial GRE AC (PET/CT 1.55±0.33 vs. PET/MR 1.58 ± 0.34, P = 0.66; 95% limits of agreement − 27% to + 25%) but performed less well with Dixon AC (1.38 ± 0.44, P = 0.06; bias (−)14%; 95% limits of agreement − 25% to + 53%). In native coronaries, (18)F-fluoride uptake was similar on PET/MR to PET/CT regardless of AC approach. PET/MR identified 28/29 plaques identified on PET/CT; however, stents caused artifact on PET/MR making assessment of (18)F-fluoride uptake challenging. CONCLUSION: Cardiovascular PET/MR demonstrates good visual and quantitative agreement with PET/CT. However, PET/MR is hampered by stent-related artifacts currently limiting clinical application. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s12350-019-01962-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer International Publishing 2019-12-02 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8616877/ /pubmed/31792913 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12350-019-01962-y Text en © The Author(s) 2019 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Original Article
Andrews, Jack P. M.
MacNaught, Gillian
Moss, Alastair J.
Doris, Mhairi K.
Pawade, Tania
Adamson, Philip D.
van Beek, Edwin J. R.
Lucatelli, Christophe
Lassen, Martin L.
Robson, Philip M.
Fayad, Zahi A.
Kwiecinski, Jacek
Slomka, Piotr J.
Berman, Daniel S.
Newby, David E.
Dweck, Marc R.
Cardiovascular (18)F-fluoride positron emission tomography-magnetic resonance imaging: A comparison study
title Cardiovascular (18)F-fluoride positron emission tomography-magnetic resonance imaging: A comparison study
title_full Cardiovascular (18)F-fluoride positron emission tomography-magnetic resonance imaging: A comparison study
title_fullStr Cardiovascular (18)F-fluoride positron emission tomography-magnetic resonance imaging: A comparison study
title_full_unstemmed Cardiovascular (18)F-fluoride positron emission tomography-magnetic resonance imaging: A comparison study
title_short Cardiovascular (18)F-fluoride positron emission tomography-magnetic resonance imaging: A comparison study
title_sort cardiovascular (18)f-fluoride positron emission tomography-magnetic resonance imaging: a comparison study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8616877/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31792913
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12350-019-01962-y
work_keys_str_mv AT andrewsjackpm cardiovascular18ffluoridepositronemissiontomographymagneticresonanceimagingacomparisonstudy
AT macnaughtgillian cardiovascular18ffluoridepositronemissiontomographymagneticresonanceimagingacomparisonstudy
AT mossalastairj cardiovascular18ffluoridepositronemissiontomographymagneticresonanceimagingacomparisonstudy
AT dorismhairik cardiovascular18ffluoridepositronemissiontomographymagneticresonanceimagingacomparisonstudy
AT pawadetania cardiovascular18ffluoridepositronemissiontomographymagneticresonanceimagingacomparisonstudy
AT adamsonphilipd cardiovascular18ffluoridepositronemissiontomographymagneticresonanceimagingacomparisonstudy
AT vanbeekedwinjr cardiovascular18ffluoridepositronemissiontomographymagneticresonanceimagingacomparisonstudy
AT lucatellichristophe cardiovascular18ffluoridepositronemissiontomographymagneticresonanceimagingacomparisonstudy
AT lassenmartinl cardiovascular18ffluoridepositronemissiontomographymagneticresonanceimagingacomparisonstudy
AT robsonphilipm cardiovascular18ffluoridepositronemissiontomographymagneticresonanceimagingacomparisonstudy
AT fayadzahia cardiovascular18ffluoridepositronemissiontomographymagneticresonanceimagingacomparisonstudy
AT kwiecinskijacek cardiovascular18ffluoridepositronemissiontomographymagneticresonanceimagingacomparisonstudy
AT slomkapiotrj cardiovascular18ffluoridepositronemissiontomographymagneticresonanceimagingacomparisonstudy
AT bermandaniels cardiovascular18ffluoridepositronemissiontomographymagneticresonanceimagingacomparisonstudy
AT newbydavide cardiovascular18ffluoridepositronemissiontomographymagneticresonanceimagingacomparisonstudy
AT dweckmarcr cardiovascular18ffluoridepositronemissiontomographymagneticresonanceimagingacomparisonstudy