A Retrospective Evaluation of Bayesian-penalized Likelihood Reconstruction for [O]HO Myocardial Perfusion Imaging

Overview

Journal J Nucl Cardiol

Specialty Cardiology & Vascular Diseases

Date 2023 Jan 19

PMID 36656496

Authors

Reetta Siekkinen

Chunlei Han

Teemu Maaniitty

Mika Teras

Juhani Knuuti

Antti Saraste

Jarmo Teuho

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: New Block-Sequential-Regularized-Expectation-Maximization (BSREM) image reconstruction technique has been introduced for clinical use mainly for oncologic use. Accurate and quantitative image reconstruction is essential in myocardial perfusion imaging with positron emission tomography (PET) as it utilizes absolute quantitation of myocardial blood flow (MBF). The aim of the study was to evaluate BSREM reconstruction for quantitation in patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD).

Methods And Results: We analyzed cardiac [O]HO PET studies of 177 patients evaluated for CAD. Differences between BSREM and Ordered-Subset-Expectation-Maximization with Time-Of-Flight (TOF) and Point-Spread-Function (PSF) modeling (OSEM-TOF-PSF) in terms of MBF, perfusable tissue fraction, and vascular volume fraction were measured. Classification of ischemia was assessed between the algorithms. OSEM-TOF-PSF and BSREM provided similar global stress MBF in patients with ischemia (1.84 ± 0.21 g⋅ml⋅min vs 1.86 ± 0.21 g⋅ml⋅min) and no ischemia (3.26 ± 0.34 g⋅ml⋅min vs 3.28 ± 0.34 g⋅ml⋅min). Global resting MBF was also similar (0.97 ± 0.12 g⋅ml⋅min and 1.12 ± 0.06 g⋅ml⋅min). The largest mean relative difference in MBF values was 7%. Presence of myocardial ischemia was classified concordantly in 99% of patients using OSEM-TOF-PSF and BSREM reconstructions CONCLUSION: OSEM-TOF-PSF and BSREM image reconstructions produce similar MBF values and diagnosis of myocardial ischemia in patients undergoing [O]HO PET due to suspected obstructive coronary artery disease.

References

Armstrong I, Tonge C, Arumugam P . Impact of point spread function modeling and time-of-flight on myocardial blood flow and myocardial flow reserve measurements for rubidium-82 cardiac PET. J Nucl Cardiol. 2014; 21(3):467-74. DOI: 10.1007/s12350-014-9858-8. View

Knuuti J, Ballo H, Juarez-Orozco L, Saraste A, Kolh P, Rutjes A . The performance of non-invasive tests to rule-in and rule-out significant coronary artery stenosis in patients with stable angina: a meta-analysis focused on post-test disease probability. Eur Heart J. 2018; 39(35):3322-3330. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy267. View

Hsu D, Ilan E, Peterson W, Uribe J, Lubberink M, Levin C . Studies of a Next-Generation Silicon-Photomultiplier-Based Time-of-Flight PET/CT System. J Nucl Med. 2017; 58(9):1511-1518. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.117.189514. View

Iida H, Rhodes C, De Silva R, Yamamoto Y, Araujo L, Maseri A . Myocardial tissue fraction--correction for partial volume effects and measure of tissue viability. J Nucl Med. 1991; 32(11):2169-75. View

Aide N, Lasnon C, Desmonts C, Armstrong I, Walker M, McGowan D . Advances in PET/CT Technology: An Update. Semin Nucl Med. 2021; 52(3):286-301. DOI: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2021.10.005. View

O Doherty J, McGowan D, Abreu C, Barrington S . Effect of Bayesian-penalized likelihood reconstruction on [13N]-NH3 rest perfusion quantification. J Nucl Cardiol. 2016; 24(1):282-290. PMC: 5084874. DOI: 10.1007/s12350-016-0554-8. View

Gabrani-Juma H, Clarkin O, Pourmoghaddas A, Driscoll B, Wells R, deKemp R . Validation of a Multimodality Flow Phantom and Its Application for Assessment of Dynamic SPECT and PET Technologies. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2017; 36(1):132-141. DOI: 10.1109/TMI.2016.2599779. View

Danad I, Uusitalo V, Kero T, Saraste A, Raijmakers P, Lammertsma A . Quantitative assessment of myocardial perfusion in the detection of significant coronary artery disease: cutoff values and diagnostic accuracy of quantitative [(15)O]H2O PET imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 64(14):1464-75. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.05.069. View

Stenstrom I, Maaniitty T, Uusitalo V, Pietila M, Ukkonen H, Kajander S . Frequency and angiographic characteristics of coronary microvascular dysfunction in stable angina: a hybrid imaging study. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017; 18(11):1206-1213. DOI: 10.1093/ehjci/jex193. View

10.

Johansson B, Sundell J, Ekberg K, Jonsson C, Seppanen M, Raitakari O . C-peptide improves adenosine-induced myocardial vasodilation in type 1 diabetes patients. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2003; 286(1):E14-9. DOI: 10.1152/ajpendo.00236.2003. View

11.

Iida H, Rhodes C, De Silva R, Araujo L, Bloomfield P, Lammertsma A . Use of the left ventricular time-activity curve as a noninvasive input function in dynamic oxygen-15-water positron emission tomography. J Nucl Med. 1992; 33(9):1669-77. View

12.

Bom M, Schumacher S, Driessen R, Raijmakers P, Everaars H, van Diemen P . Impact of individualized segmentation on diagnostic performance of quantitative positron emission tomography for haemodynamically significant coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018; 20(5):525-532. DOI: 10.1093/ehjci/jey201. View

13.

Te Riet J, Rijnsdorp S, Roef M, Arends A . Evaluation of a Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm for low-count clinical F-FDG PET/CT. EJNMMI Phys. 2020; 6(1):32. PMC: 6937357. DOI: 10.1186/s40658-019-0262-y. View

14.

Nordstrom J, Harms H, Kero T, Ebrahimi M, Sorensen J, Lubberink M . Effect of PET-CT misalignment on the quantitative accuracy of cardiac O-water PET. J Nucl Cardiol. 2020; 29(3):1119-1128. PMC: 9163113. DOI: 10.1007/s12350-020-02408-6. View

15.

Germino M, Ropchan J, Mulnix T, Fontaine K, Nabulsi N, Ackah E . Quantification of myocardial blood flow with (82)Rb: Validation with (15)O-water using time-of-flight and point-spread-function modeling. EJNMMI Res. 2016; 6(1):68. PMC: 5030203. DOI: 10.1186/s13550-016-0215-6. View

16.

Iida H, Kanno I, Takahashi A, Miura S, Murakami M, Takahashi K . Measurement of absolute myocardial blood flow with H215O and dynamic positron-emission tomography. Strategy for quantification in relation to the partial-volume effect. Circulation. 1988; 78(1):104-15. DOI: 10.1161/01.cir.78.1.104. View

17.

Chicheportiche A, Marciano R, Orevi M . Comparison of NEMA characterizations for Discovery MI and Discovery MI-DR TOF PET/CT systems at different sites and with other commercial PET/CT systems. EJNMMI Phys. 2020; 7(1):4. PMC: 6960280. DOI: 10.1186/s40658-020-0271-x. View

18.

Teoh E, McGowan D, Macpherson R, Bradley K, Gleeson F . Phantom and Clinical Evaluation of the Bayesian Penalized Likelihood Reconstruction Algorithm Q.Clear on an LYSO PET/CT System. J Nucl Med. 2015; 56(9):1447-52. PMC: 4558942. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.115.159301. View

19.

Dolci C, Spadavecchia C, Crivellaro C, De Ponti E, Todde S, Morzenti S . Treatment response assessment in [F]FDG-PET/CT oncology scans: Impact of count statistics variation and reconstruction protocol. Phys Med. 2019; 57:177-182. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2018.12.038. View

20.

Sciagra R, Lubberink M, Hyafil F, Saraste A, Slart R, Agostini D . EANM procedural guidelines for PET/CT quantitative myocardial perfusion imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020; 48(4):1040-1069. PMC: 7603916. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-020-05046-9. View