Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 1/2014

01-01-2014 | Original Article

Absolute myocardial flow quantification with 82Rb PET/CT: comparison of different software packages and methods

Authors: Abdel K. Tahari, Andy Lee, Mahadevan Rajaram, Kenji Fukushima, Martin A Lodge, Benjamin C. Lee, Edward P. Ficaro, Stephan Nekolla, Ran Klein, Robert A. deKemp, Richard L. Wahl, Frank M. Bengel, Paco E. Bravo

Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Issue 1/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

In clinical cardiac 82Rb PET, globally impaired coronary flow reserve (CFR) is a relevant marker for predicting short-term cardiovascular events. However, there are limited data on the impact of different software and methods for estimation of myocardial blood flow (MBF) and CFR. Our objective was to compare quantitative results obtained from previously validated software tools.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed cardiac 82Rb PET/CT data from 25 subjects (group 1, 62 ± 11 years) with low-to-intermediate probability of coronary artery disease (CAD) and 26 patients (group 2, 57 ± 10 years; P = 0.07) with known CAD. Resting and vasodilator-stress MBF and CFR were derived using three software applications: (1) Corridor4DM (4DM) based on factor analysis (FA) and kinetic modeling, (2) 4DM based on region-of-interest (ROI) and kinetic modeling, (3) MunichHeart (MH), which uses a simplified ROI-based retention model approach, and (4) FlowQuant (FQ) based on ROI and compartmental modeling with constant distribution volume.

Results

Resting and stress MBF values (in milliliters per minute per gram) derived using the different methods were significantly different: using 4DM-FA, 4DM-ROI, FQ, and MH resting MBF values were 1.47 ± 0.59, 1.16 ± 0.51, 0.91 ± 0.39, and 0.90 ± 0.44, respectively (P < 0.001), and stress MBF values were 3.05 ± 1.66, 2.26 ± 1.01, 1.90 ± 0.82, and 1.83 ± 0.81, respectively (P < 0.001). However, there were no statistically significant differences among the CFR values (2.15 ± 1.08, 2.05 ± 0.83, 2.23 ± 0.89, and 2.21 ± 0.90, respectively; P = 0.17). Regional MBF and CFR according to vascular territories showed similar results. Linear correlation coefficient for global CFR varied between 0.71 (MH vs. 4DM-ROI) and 0.90 (FQ vs. 4DM-ROI). Using a cut-off value of 2.0 for abnormal CFR, the agreement among the software programs ranged between 76 % (MH vs. FQ) and 90 % (FQ vs. 4DM-ROI). Interobserver agreement was in general excellent with all software packages.

Conclusion

Quantitative assessment of resting and stress MBF with 82Rb PET is dependent on the software and methods used, whereas CFR appears to be more comparable. Follow-up and treatment assessment should be done with the same software and method.
Literature
1.
Machac J. Cardiac positron emission tomography imaging. Elsevier; 2005. p. 17–36.
2.
Bengel FM, Higuchi T, Javadi MS, Lautamäki R. Cardiac positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:1–15.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Di Carli MF, Hachamovitch R. New technology for noninvasive evaluation of coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2007;115:1464–80.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Bateman TM, Heller GV, McGhie AI, Friedman JD, Case JA, Bryngelson JR, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of rest/stress ECG-gated Rb-82 myocardial perfusion PET: comparison with ECG-gated Tc-99m sestamibi SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol. 2006;13:24–33.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Sampson UK, Dorbala S, Limaye A, Kwong R, Di Carli MF. Diagnostic accuracy of rubidium-82 myocardial perfusion imaging with hybrid positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the detection of coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:1052–8.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Lertsburapa K, Ahlberg AW, Bateman TM, Katten D, Volker L, Cullom SJ, et al. Independent and incremental prognostic value of left ventricular ejection fraction determined by stress gated rubidium 82 PET imaging in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. J Nucl Cardiol. 2008;15:745–53.PubMed
7.
Yoshinaga K, Chow BJW, Williams K, Chen L, deKemp RA, Garrard L, et al. What is the prognostic value of myocardial perfusion imaging using rubidium-82 positron emission tomography? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:1029–39.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Flotats A, Bravo PE, Fukushima K, Chaudhry MA, Merrill J, Bengel FM. 82Rb PET myocardial perfusion imaging is superior to 99mTc-labelled agent SPECT in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:1233–9.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Holly TA, Abbott BG, Al-Mallah M, Calnon DA, Cohen MC, DiFilippo FP, et al. Single photon-emission computed tomography. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17:941–73.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Bengel FM. Leaving relativity behind: quantitative clinical perfusion imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:749.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Herrero P, Markham J, Shelton ME, Bergmann SR. Implementation and evaluation of a two-compartment model for quantification of myocardial perfusion with rubidium-82 and positron emission tomography. Circ Res. 1992;70:496–507.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Yoshida K, Mullani N, Gould KL. Coronary flow and flow reserve by PET simplified for clinical applications using rubidium-82 or nitrogen-13-ammonia. J Nucl Med. 1996;37:1701–12.PubMed
13.
El Fakhri G, Sitek A, Guérin B, Kijewski MF, Di Carli MF, Moore SC. Quantitative dynamic cardiac 82Rb PET using generalized factor and compartment analyses. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:1264–71.PubMed
14.
El Fakhri G, Kardan A, Sitek A, Dorbala S, Abi-Hatem N, Lahoud Y, et al. Reproducibility and accuracy of quantitative myocardial blood flow assessment with 82Rb PET: comparison with 13N-ammonia PET. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:1062–71.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Lautamäki R, George RT, Kitagawa K, Higuchi T, Merrill J, Voicu C, et al. Rubidium-82 PET-CT for quantitative assessment of myocardial blood flow: validation in a canine model of coronary artery stenosis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:576–86.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Lortie M, Beanlands RSB, Yoshinaga K, Klein R, DaSilva JN, DeKemp RA. Quantification of myocardial blood flow with 82Rb dynamic PET imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:1765–74.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Fukushima K, Javadi MS, Higuchi T, Lautamäki R, Merrill J, Nekolla SG, et al. Prediction of short-term cardiovascular events using quantification of global myocardial flow reserve in patients referred for clinical 82Rb PET perfusion imaging. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:726–32.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Herzog BA, Husmann L, Valenta I, Gaemperli O, Siegrist PT, Tay FM, et al. Long-term prognostic value of 13N-ammonia myocardial perfusion positron emission tomography: added value of coronary flow reserve. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:150–6.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Murthy VL, Naya M, Foster CR, Hainer J, Gaber M, Di Carli G, et al. Improved cardiac risk assessment with noninvasive measures of coronary flow reserve. Circulation. 2011;124:2215–24.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Tio RA, Dabeshlim A, Siebelink HMJ, De Sutter J, Hillege HL, Zeebregts CJ, et al. Comparison between the prognostic value of left ventricular function and myocardial perfusion reserve in patients with ischemic heart disease. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:214–9.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Ziadi MC, deKemp RA, Williams KA, Guo A, Chow BJW, Renaud JM, et al. Impaired myocardial flow reserve on rubidium-82 positron emission tomography imaging predicts adverse outcomes in patients assessed for myocardial ischemia. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:740–8.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Fiechter M, Gebhard C, Ghadri JR, Fuchs TA, Pazhenkottil AP, Nkoulou RN, et al. Myocardial perfusion imaging with 13N-ammonia PET is a strong predictor for outcome. Int J Cardiol. 2013;167:1023–6.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Slomka PJ, Alexanderson E, Jácome R, Jiménez M, Romero E, Meave A, et al. Comparison of clinical tools for measurements of regional stress and rest myocardial blood flow assessed with 13N-ammonia PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:171–81.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Rajaram M, Tahari AK, Lee AH, Lodge MA, Tsui B, Nekolla S, et al. Cardiac PET/CT misregistration causes significant changes in estimated myocardial blood flow. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:50–4.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Nekolla SG, Miethaner C, Nguyen N, Ziegler SI, Schwaiger M. Reproducibility of polar map generation and assessment of defect severity and extent assessment in myocardial perfusion imaging using positron emission tomography. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 1998;25:1313–21.CrossRef
26.
Klein R, Renaud JM, Ziadi MC, Thorn SL, Adler A, Beanlands RS, et al. Intra- and inter-operator repeatability of myocardial blood flow and myocardial flow reserve measurements using rubidium-82 PET and a highly automated analysis program. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17:600–16.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Sitek A, Gullberg GT, Huesman RH. Correction for ambiguous solutions in factor analysis using a penalized least squares objective. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2002;21:216–25.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Lee B, Moody J, Sitek A, Murthy V, Di Carli M, Corbett J, et al. Effects of filtering on Rb-82 myocardial blood flow estimates. J Nucl Med. 2013;54 Suppl 2:1659.
29.
Moody JB, Lee BC, Ficaro EF. Error estimation for dynamic PET myocardial blood flow. J Nucl Med. 2012;53 Suppl 1:323.
30.
Klein R, Beanlands RS, deKemp RA. Quantification of myocardial blood flow and flow reserve: technical aspects. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17:555–70.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Klein R, Beanlands RS, Wassenaar RW, Thorn SL, Lamoureux M, DaSilva JN, et al. Kinetic model-based factor analysis of dynamic sequences for 82-rubidium cardiac positron emission tomography. Med Phys. 2010;37:3995–4010.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Absolute myocardial flow quantification with 82Rb PET/CT: comparison of different software packages and methods
Authors
Abdel K. Tahari
Andy Lee
Mahadevan Rajaram
Kenji Fukushima
Martin A Lodge
Benjamin C. Lee
Edward P. Ficaro
Stephan Nekolla
Ran Klein
Robert A. deKemp
Richard L. Wahl
Frank M. Bengel
Paco E. Bravo
Publication date
01-01-2014
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Issue 1/2014
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Electronic ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-013-2537-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2014

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 1/2014 Go to the issue

Original Article

Comparison of PET imaging with a 68Ga-labelled PSMA ligand and 18F-choline-based PET/CT for the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer

Original Article

Evaluation of the PET component of simultaneous [18F]choline PET/MRI in prostate cancer: comparison with [18F]choline PET/CT

Editorial

Biting the magic bullet: celebrating a decade of the EANM Dosimetry Committee

Image of the Month

Multiple skeletal lesions on FDG PET in severe primary hyperparathyroidism

Original Article

Effects of oral nicorandil therapy on sympathetic nerve activity and cardiac events in patients with chronic heart failure: subanalysis of our previous report using propensity score matching

Obituary

Prof. Ajit Padhy MBBS, MNAMS, FAMS