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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |