Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Nucl Cardiol. 2018 Nov 29. doi: 10.1007/s12350-018-01542-6. [Epub ahead of print]

Analytical quantification of aortic valve 18F-sodium fluoride PET uptake.

Author information

1
Leon H. Charney Division of Cardiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
2
BHF Centre for Cardiovascular Science, Clinical Research Imaging Centre, Edinburgh Heart Centre, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
3
Department of Imaging, Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 8700 Beverly Blvd, Ste A047 N, Los Angeles, CA, 90048, USA.
4
Department of Cardiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
5
Department of Imaging, Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 8700 Beverly Blvd, Ste A047 N, Los Angeles, CA, 90048, USA. piotr.slomka@cshs.org.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Challenges to cardiac PET-CT include patient motion, prolonged image acquisition and a reduction of counts due to gating. We compared two analytical tools, FusionQuant and OsiriX, for quantification of gated cardiac 18F-sodium fluoride (18F-fluoride) PET-CT imaging.

METHODS:

Twenty-seven patients with aortic stenosis were included, 15 of whom underwent repeated imaging 4 weeks apart. Agreement between analytical tools and scan-rescan reproducibility was determined using the Bland-Altman method and Lin's concordance correlation coefficients (CCC).

RESULTS:

Image analysis was faster with FusionQuant [median time (IQR) 7:10 (6:40-8:20) minutes] compared with OsiriX [8:30 (8:00-10:10) minutes, p = .002]. Agreement of uptake measurements between programs was excellent, CCC = 0.972 (95% CI 0.949-0.995) for mean tissue-to-background ratio (TBRmean) and 0.981 (95% CI 0.965-0.997) for maximum tissue-to-background ratio (TBRmax). Mean noise decreased from 11.7% in the diastolic gate to 6.7% in motion-corrected images (p = .002); SNR increased from 25.41 to 41.13 (p = .0001). Aortic valve scan-rescan reproducibility for TBRmax was improved with FusionQuant using motion correction compared to OsiriX (error ± 36% vs ± 13%, p < .001) while reproducibility for TBRmean was similar (± 10% vs ± 8% p = .252).

CONCLUSION:

18F-fluoride PET quantification with FusionQuant and OsiriX is comparable. FusionQuant with motion correction offers advantages with respect to analysis time and reproducibility of TBRmax values.

KEYWORDS:

Positron emission tomography; cardiac motion; computed tomography; valvular disease

PMID:
30499069
DOI:
10.1007/s12350-018-01542-6

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center