Key result
3D dynamic 13N-ammonia PET highly correlates with 2D PET for measuring global MBF.
Why the study?
Does 3-dimensional dynamic PET provide comparable absolute quantification of myocardial blood flow to 2-dimensional PET using 13N-ammonia in patients undergoing cardiac evaluation?
Observational (n=21)
Does 3-dimensional dynamic PET provide comparable absolute quantification of myocardial blood flow to 2-dimensional PET using 13N-ammonia in patients undergoing cardiac evaluation?
Effect estimate: r = 0.97
p-value: p=<0.0001
3D dynamic PET with 13N-ammonia provides accurate absolute quantification of myocardial blood flow comparable to 2D PET, even at lower injected activities.
Supports 3D PET for MBF quantification in cardiac evaluation; leaves open prospective outcome validation before routine adoption.
UNLABELLED: The aim of this study was to compare 2-dimensional (2D) and 3-dimensional (3D) dynamic PET for the absolute quantification of myocardial blood flow (MBF) with (13)N-ammonia ((13)N-NH(3)). METHODS: 2D and 3D MBF measurements were collected from 21 patients undergoing cardiac evaluation at rest (n = 14) and during standard adenosine stress (n = 7). A lutetium yttrium oxyorthosilicate-based PET/CT system with retractable septa, enabling the sequential acquisition of 2D and 3D images within the same patient and study, was used. All 2D studies were performed by injecting 700-900 MBq of (13)N-NH(3). For 14 patients, 3D studies were performed with the same injected (13)N-NH(3) dose as that used in 2D studies. For the remaining 7 patients, 3D images were acquired with a lower dose of (13)N-NH(3), that is, 500 MBq. 2D images reconstructed by use of filtered backprojection (FBP) provided the reference standard for MBF measurements. 3D images were reconstructed by use of Fourier rebinning (FORE) with FBP (FORE-FBP), FORE with ordered-subsets expectation maximization (FORE-OSEM), and a reprojection algorithm (RP). RESULTS: Global MBF measurements derived from 3D PET with FORE-FBP (r = 0.97), FORE-OSEM (r = 0.97), and RP (r = 0.97) were well correlated with those derived from 2D FBP (all Ps < 0.0001). The mean +/- SD differences in global MBF measurements between 3D FORE-FBP and 2D FBP and between 3D FORE-OSEM and 2D FBP were 0.01 +/- 0.14 and 0.01 +/- 0.15 mL/min/g, respectively. The mean +/- SD difference in global MBF measurements between 3D RP and 2D FBP was 0.00 +/- 0.16 mL/min/g. The best correlation between 2D PET and 3D PET performed with the lower injected activity was found for the 3D FORE-FBP reconstruction algorithm (r = 0.95, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: For this scanner type, quantitative measurements of MBF with 3D PET and (13)N-NH(3) were in excellent agreement with those obtained with the 2D technique, even when a lower activity was injected.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schepis et al. (2007) conducted an observational in Cardiac evaluation (n=21). 3-dimensional (3D) dynamic PET with 13N-ammonia vs. 2-dimensional (2D) dynamic PET with 13N-ammonia was evaluated on Global myocardial blood flow (MBF) measurements (r = 0.97, p=<0.0001). 3-dimensional dynamic PET with 13N-ammonia provided global myocardial blood flow measurements that were highly correlated with 2-dimensional PET (r = 0.97, P < 0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: