Hsu Bailing, Hu Lien-Hsin, Yang Bang-Hung, Chen Lung-Ching, Chen Yen-Kung, Ting Chien-Hsin, Hung Guang-Uei, Huang Wen-Sheng, Wu Tao-Cheng
Nuclear Science and Engineering Institute, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, Missouri, USA.
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017 Jan;44(1):117-128. doi: 10.1007/s00259-016-3491-5. Epub 2016 Sep 1.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of myocardial blood flow (MBF) quantitation of Tc-Sestamibi (MIBI) single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) compared with N-Ammonia (NH3) position emission tomography (PET) on the same cohorts.
Recent advances of SPECT technologies have been applied to develop MBF quantitation as a promising tool to diagnose coronary artery disease (CAD) for areas where PET MBF quantitation is not available. However, whether the SPECT approach can achieve the same level of accuracy as the PET approach for clinical use still needs further investigations.
Twelve healthy volunteers (HVT) and 16 clinical patients with CAD received both MIBI SPECT and NH3 PET flow scans. Dynamic SPECT images acquired with high temporary resolution were fully corrected for physical factors and processed to quantify K1 using the standard compartmental modeling. Human MIBI tracer extraction fraction (EF) was determined by comparing MIBI K1 and NH3 flow on the HVT group and then used to convert flow values from K1 for all subjects. MIBI and NH3 flow values were systematically compared to validate the SPECT approach.
The human MIBI EF was determined as [1.0-0.816*exp(-0.267/MBF)]. Global and regional MBF and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) of MIBI SPECT and NH3 PET were highly correlated for all subjects (global R: MBF = 0.92, MFR = 0.78; regional R: MBF ≥ 0.88, MFR ≥ 0.71). No significant differences for rest flow, stress flow, and MFR between these two approaches were observed (All p ≥ 0.088). Bland-Altman plots overall revealed small bias between MIBI SPECT and NH3 PET (global: ΔMBF = -0.03Lml/min/g, ΔMFR = 0.07; regional: ΔMBF = -0.07 - 0.06 , ΔMFR = -0.02 - 0.22).
Quantitation with SPECT technologies can be accurate to measure myocardial blood flow as PET quantitation while comprehensive imaging factors of SPECT to derive the variability between these two approaches were fully addressed and corrected.
本研究旨在评估锝-甲氧基异丁基异腈(MIBI)单光子发射计算机断层扫描(SPECT)与氮-氨(NH3)正电子发射断层扫描(PET)在同一队列中对心肌血流(MBF)定量的准确性。
SPECT技术的最新进展已被应用于开发MBF定量,作为在无法进行PET MBF定量的地区诊断冠状动脉疾病(CAD)的一种有前景的工具。然而,SPECT方法在临床应用中是否能达到与PET方法相同的准确性水平仍需进一步研究。
12名健康志愿者(HVT)和16名CAD临床患者接受了MIBI SPECT和NH3 PET血流扫描。使用高时间分辨率采集的动态SPECT图像针对物理因素进行了全面校正,并使用标准房室模型进行处理以量化K1。通过比较HVT组的MIBI K1和NH3血流来确定人MIBI示踪剂提取分数(EF),然后将其用于转换所有受试者从K1得到的血流值。系统比较MIBI和NH3血流值以验证SPECT方法。
人MIBI EF确定为[1.0 - 0.816*exp(-0.267/MBF)]。所有受试者的MIBI SPECT和NH3 PET的整体和区域MBF以及心肌血流储备(MFR)高度相关(整体R:MBF = 0.92,MFR = 0.78;区域R:MBF≥0.88,MFR≥0.71)。未观察到这两种方法在静息血流、负荷血流和MFR方面存在显著差异(所有p≥0.088)。Bland-Altman图总体显示MIBI SPECT和NH3 PET之间存在小的偏差(整体:ΔMBF = -0.03Lml/min/g,ΔMFR = 0.07;区域:ΔMBF = -0.07 - 0.06,ΔMFR = -0.02 - 0.22)。
SPECT技术定量可像PET定量一样准确测量心肌血流,同时充分考虑并校正了SPECT的综合成像因素以得出这两种方法之间的差异。