QGS和4D-MSPECT对门控18F-FDG PET定量左心室容积和射血分数的验证：与心脏磁共振成像的比较
Validation of QGS and 4D-MSPECT for quantification of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction from gated 18F-FDG PET: comparison with cardiac MRI.
作者信息
Schaefer Wolfgang M, Lipke Claudia S A, Nowak Bernd, Kaiser Hans-Juergen, Reinartz Patrick, Buecker Arno, Krombach Gabriele A, Buell Udalrich, Kühl Harald P
机构信息
Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, University of Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
出版信息
J Nucl Med. 2004 Jan;45(1):74-9.
UNLABELLED
The aim of this study was to validate Quantitative Gated SPECT (QGS) and 4D-MSPECT for assessing left ventricular end-diastolic and systolic volumes (EDV and ESV, respectively) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from gated (18)F-FDG PET.
METHODS
Forty-four patients with severe coronary artery disease were examined with gated (18)F-FDG PET (8 gates per cardiac cycle). EDV, ESV, and LVEF were calculated from gated (18)F-FDG PET using QGS and 4D-MSPECT. Within 2 d (median), cardiovascular cine MRI (cMRI) (20 gates per cardiac cycle) was done as a reference.
RESULTS
QGS failed to accurately detect myocardial borders in 1 patient; 4D-MSPECT, in 2 patients. For the remaining 42 patients, correlation between the results of gated (18)F-FDG PET and cMRI was high for EDV (R = 0.94 for QGS and 0.94 for 4D-MSPECT), ESV (R = 0.95 for QGS and 0.95 for 4D-MSPECT), and LVEF (R = 0.94 for QGS and 0.90 for 4D-MSPECT). QGS significantly (P < 0.0001) underestimated LVEF, whereas no other parameter differed significantly between gated (18)F-FDG PET and cMRI for either algorithm.
CONCLUSION
Despite small systematic differences that, among other aspects, limit interchangeability, agreement between gated (18)F-FDG PET and cMRI is good across a wide range of clinically relevant volumes and LVEF values assessed by QGS and 4D-MSPECT.
未标注
本研究的目的是验证定量门控单光子发射计算机断层显像（QGS）和四维心肌单光子发射计算机断层显像（4D-MSPECT）用于评估门控（18）F-氟代脱氧葡萄糖正电子发射断层显像（PET）中的左心室舒张末期和收缩末期容积（分别为EDV和ESV）以及左心室射血分数（LVEF）。
方法
对44例严重冠状动脉疾病患者进行门控（18）F-FDG PET检查（每个心动周期8个门控）。使用QGS和4D-MSPECT从门控（18）F-FDG PET计算EDV、ESV和LVEF。在2天内（中位数），进行心血管电影磁共振成像（cMRI）（每个心动周期20个门控）作为参考。
结果
QGS未能准确检测出1例患者的心肌边界；4D-MSPECT未能准确检测出2例患者的心肌边界。对于其余42例患者，门控（18）F-FDG PET与cMRI结果之间的相关性在EDV方面较高（QGS为R = 0.94，4D-MSPECT为R = 0.94），ESV方面较高（QGS为R = 0.95，4D-MSPECT为R = 0.95），LVEF方面较高（QGS为R = 0.94，4D-MSPECT为R = 0.90）。QGS显著（P < 0.0001）低估了LVEF，而对于两种算法，门控（18）F-FDG PET和cMRI之间的其他参数没有显著差异。
结论
尽管存在一些小的系统差异，这些差异在其他方面限制了互换性，但门控（18）F-FDG PET与cMRI之间在通过QGS和4D-MSPECT评估的广泛临床相关容积和LVEF值范围内一致性良好。
Zotero 插件