Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2020
Test-retest repeatability and software reproducibility of myocardial flow measurements using rest/adenosine stress Rubidium-82 PET/CT with and without motion correction in healthy young volunteers.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Byrne Christina, Kjaer Andreas, Olsen Naja Enevold, Forman Julie Lyng, Hasbak Philip
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Myocardial flow reserve (MFR) assessment with cardiac positron emission computed tomography (PET/CT) is well established, and quantification relies on commercial software packages. However, for reliable use, repeatability and reproducibility are important. The aim of this study was therefore to investigate and compare between scans and software packages the repeatability and reproducibility of 82Rb-PET/CT estimated MFR.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty healthy volunteers completed two 82Rb-PET/CT rest and adenosine stress scans. syngo.MBF (Siemens), quantitative-gated SPECT (QGS) (Cedars-Sinai), and Corridor4DM (4DM) were used for analyses. Motion correction was available for 4DM. Fifty percent were men and age was 24 ± 4 years (mean ± SD). Repeatability of MFR varied between scans. syngo.MBF: mean difference (95% CI) 0.26 (- 0.03 to 0.54), P = 0.07, limits of agreement (LoA): - 1.43 to 1.95; QGS: 0.19 (- 0.08 to 0.46), P = 0.15, LoA: - 1.38 to 1.76; 4DM: 0.08 (- 0.17 to 0.34), P = 0.50, LoA: - 1.37 to 1.53; and 4DM motion corrected: 0.17 (- 0.17 to 0.51), P = 0.32, LoA: - 1.89 to 2.22. MFR was higher using 4DM +/- motion correction compared with syngo.MBF and QGS (all P < 0.0001). Concordance between syngo.MBF and QGS was high (P = 0.83).
CONCLUSIONS: Reproducibility of MFR varied for the different software. The highest concordance between MFRs was found between syngo.MBF and QGS.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty healthy volunteers completed two 82Rb-PET/CT rest and adenosine stress scans. syngo.MBF (Siemens), quantitative-gated SPECT (QGS) (Cedars-Sinai), and Corridor4DM (4DM) were used for analyses. Motion correction was available for 4DM. Fifty percent were men and age was 24 ± 4 years (mean ± SD). Repeatability of MFR varied between scans. syngo.MBF: mean difference (95% CI) 0.26 (- 0.03 to 0.54), P = 0.07, limits of agreement (LoA): - 1.43 to 1.95; QGS: 0.19 (- 0.08 to 0.46), P = 0.15, LoA: - 1.38 to 1.76; 4DM: 0.08 (- 0.17 to 0.34), P = 0.50, LoA: - 1.37 to 1.53; and 4DM motion corrected: 0.17 (- 0.17 to 0.51), P = 0.32, LoA: - 1.89 to 2.22. MFR was higher using 4DM +/- motion correction compared with syngo.MBF and QGS (all P < 0.0001). Concordance between syngo.MBF and QGS was high (P = 0.83).
CONCLUSIONS: Reproducibility of MFR varied for the different software. The highest concordance between MFRs was found between syngo.MBF and QGS.