Key result
Net tracer retention with motion correction improves SPECT myocardial flow precision ~18% vs one-compartment models.
Why the study?
Uncertainty in measured myocardial blood flow values using SPECT limits its consistency and clinical utility, necessitating evaluation of improved kinetic models.
Does a net tracer retention model improve the precision and calibration of SPECT myocardial blood flow measurements compared to a one-compartment model?
Observational (n=61)
Does a net tracer retention model improve the precision and calibration of SPECT myocardial blood flow measurements compared to a one-compartment model?
The net tracer retention model with motion correction improves the precision and calibration of SPECT myocardial blood flow measurements without losing accuracy compared to standard PET.
May reduce SPECT MBF uncertainty via protocol optimization; leaves open clinical validation before practice change.
BACKGROUND: Noninvasive quantification of absolute myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) provides incremental benefit to relative myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) to diagnose and manage heart disease. MBF can be measured with single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) but the uncertainty in the measured values is high. Standardization and optimization of protocols for SPECT MBF measurements will improve the consistency of this technique. One element of the processing protocol is the choice of kinetic model used to analyze the dynamic image series. PURPOSE: This study evaluates if a net tracer retention model (RET) will provide a better fit to the acquired data and greater test-retest precision than a one-compartment model (1CM) for SPECT MBF, with (+MC) and without (-MC) manual motion correction. METHODS: Data from previously acquired rest-stress MBF studies (31 SPECT-PET and 30 SPECT-SPECT) were reprocessed ± MC. Rate constants (K1) were extracted using 1CM and RET, +/-MC, and compared pairwise with standard PET MBF measurements using cross-validation to obtain calibration parameters for converting SPECT rate constants to MBF and to assess the goodness-of-fit of the calibration curves. Precision (coefficient of variation of test re-test relative differences, COV) of flow measurements was computed for 1CM and RET ± MC using data from the repeated SPECT MBF studies. RESULTS: Both the RET model and MC improved the goodness-of-fit of the SPECT MBF calibration curves to PET. All models produced minimal bias compared with PET (mean bias < 0.6%). The SPECT-SPECT MBF COV significantly improved from 34% (1CM+MC) to 28% (RET+MC, P = 0.008). CONCLUSION: The RET+MC model provides a better calibration of SPECT to PET and blood flow measurements with better precision than the 1CM, without loss of accuracy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cuddy‐Walsh et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Heart disease (n=61). Net tracer retention model (RET) with manual motion correction vs. One-compartment model (1CM) with manual motion correction was evaluated on Precision (coefficient of variation of test re-test relative differences, COV) of flow measurements (p=0.008). The net tracer retention model with motion correction improved the precision of SPECT myocardial blood flow measurements compared to the one-compartment model (COV 28% vs 34%, P=0.008).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: