» Articles » PMID: 38058581

Phantom-Based Standardization Method for I-metaiodobenzylguanidine Heart-to-Mediastinum Ratio Validated by D-SPECT Versus Anger Camera

Overview
Date 2023 Dec 7
PMID 38058581
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

: The I-metaiodobenzylguanidine heart-to-mediastinum ratios (HMRs) have been standardized between D-SPECT and Anger cameras in a small patient cohort using a phantom-based conversion method. This study aimed to determine the validity of this method and compare the diagnostic performance of the two cameras in a larger patient cohort. : We retrospectively calculated HMRs from early and late anterior-planar equivalent and planar images acquired from 173 patients in 177 studies using D-SPECT and Anger cameras, respectively. The D-SPECT HMRs were cross-calibrated to an Anger camera using conversion coefficients based on previous phantom findings, then standardized to medium-energy general-purpose collimator conditions. Relationships between HMRs before and after corrections were investigated. Late HMRs were classified into four cardiac mortality risk groups and divided into two groups using a threshold of 2.2 to verify diagnostic performance concordance. : Correction improved linear regression lines and differences in HMRs among the groups. The overall ratios of perfect concordance were (134 [75.7%] of 177), and higher in groups with very low (49 [80.3%] of 61) and high (51 [86.4%] of 59) HMRs when the standardized HMR was classified according to cardiac mortality risk. That between the systems was the highest (164 [92.7%] of 177) when the HMR was divided by a threshold value of 2.2. : Phantom-based conversion can standardize HMRs between D-SPECT and Anger cameras because the standardized HMR provided comparable diagnostic performance. Our findings indicated that this conversion could be applied to multicenter studies that include both D-SPECT and Anger cameras.

Citing Articles

Comparison of Taiwanese and European Calibration Factors for Heart-to-Mediastinum Ratio in Multicenter I-mIBG Phantom Studies.

Okuda K, Nakajima K, Hung G, Wu H, Verschure D, Verberne H Ann Nucl Cardiol. 2023; 9(1):54-60.

PMID: 38058572 PMC: 10696153. DOI: 10.17996/anc.23-00006.

References
1.
Nakajima K, Okuda K, Komatsu J . What does diagnostic threshold mean? Deterministic and probabilistic considerations. J Nucl Cardiol. 2019; 28(4):1702-1706. DOI: 10.1007/s12350-019-01899-2. View

2.
Dimitriu-Leen A, Gimelli A, Al Younis I, Veltman C, Verberne H, Wolterbeek R . The impact of acquisition time of planar cardiac (123)I-MIBG imaging on the late heart to mediastinum ratio. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015; 43(2):326-332. PMC: 4700092. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-015-3220-5. View

3.
Okuda K, Nakajima K, Hosoya T, Ishikawa T, Konishi T, Matsubara K . Semi-automated algorithm for calculating heart-to-mediastinum ratio in cardiac Iodine-123 MIBG imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010; 18(1):82-9. DOI: 10.1007/s12350-010-9313-4. View

4.
Agostini D, Marie P, Ben-Haim S, Rouzet F, Songy B, Giordano A . Performance of cardiac cadmium-zinc-telluride gamma camera imaging in coronary artery disease: a review from the cardiovascular committee of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016; 43(13):2423-2432. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-016-3467-5. View

5.
Nakajima K, Okuda K, Yokoyama K, Yoneyama T, Tsuji S, Oda H . Cross calibration of I-meta-iodobenzylguanidine heart-to-mediastinum ratio with D-SPECT planogram and Anger camera. Ann Nucl Med. 2017; 31(8):605-615. PMC: 5622915. DOI: 10.1007/s12149-017-1191-2. View