Advertisement

Imaging technology for myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography 2018 in Japan

  • Takayuki ShibutaniEmail author
  • Koichi Okuda
  • Hajime Ichikawa
  • Toyohiro Kato
  • Kenta Miwa
  • Hiroyuki Tsushima
  • Masahisa Onoguchi
  • Akio Nagaki
Technical Note
  • 24 Downloads

Abstract

Aim

Recently, nuclear cardiology has dramatically advanced by a new technology development such as the device, short-term acquisition system, image reconstruction algorithm and image analysis. Although these innovations have been gradually employed in routine examinations, we did not investigate the current use of image acquisition, image reconstruction, and image analysis with myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography (MPS). We investigated the current status of MPS imaging technology in Japan.

Methods

We carried out a survey using a Web-based questionnaire system, the opening of which was announced via e-mail, and it was available on a website for 3 months. We collected data on the current use of MPS with 201Tl and/or 99mTc agents with respect to routine protocols, image acquisition, image reconstruction, and image analysis.

Results

We received responses to the Web-based questionnaire from 178 and 174 people for 99mTc and 201Tl MPS, respectively. The routine protocols of MPS of stress-rest and rest-stress MPS on 1-day protocols with 99mTc were 41.2% and 14.5%, respectively, and the rest-only scan response rate was 23.7%, whereas that of 201Tl MPS was 65.9% with stress-rest MPS, 19.0% with rest-only MPS, and 10.9% with stress-rest MPS adding a rest scan 24 h after injection. The filtered back projection (FBP) method is most commonly used image reconstruction method, yielding 70.5% for 99mTc MPS and 76.8% for 201Tl MPS, including combined FBP and ordered subset expectation maximization method. The results for no-correction (NC) images were 49.2% with 99mTc MPS and 55.2% with 201Tl MPS including the response of NC and combined attenuation correction (AC) and scatter correction (SC) (i.e., ACSC) images. The AC or ACSC images of 99mTc and 201Tl were provided by 30–40% of the institutions surveyed.

Conclusions

We investigated the current status of MPS imaging technology in Japan, and found that although the use of various technical developments has been reported, some of these technologies have not been utilized effectively. Hence, we expect that nuclear medicine technology will be used more effectively to improve diagnosis.

Keywords

Myocardial perfusion SPECT Japan Survey Questionnaire Nuclear cardiology technology 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank all participating respondents for their effort in contributing to the surveys. We gratefully acknowledge the support of a JSRT research grant (2017 and 2018).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

H. Ichikawa has received a research grant from JSRT. Other authors report no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Verberne HJ, Acampa W, Anagnostopoulos C, Ballinger J, Bengel F, De Bondt P, et al. EANM procedural guidelines for radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging with SPECT and SPECT/CT: 2015 revision. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:1929–40.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Strauss HW, Miller DD, Wittry MD, Cerqueira MD, Garcia EV, Iskandrian AS, et al. Procedure guideline for myocardial perfusion imaging 3.3. J Nucl Med Technol. 2008;36:155–61.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Society of nuclear medicine. The SNM procedure guideline for general imaging 6.0. https://snmmi.files.cms-plus.com/docs/General_Imaging_Version_6.0.pdf (Reference 2019.7.18)
  4. 4.
    JCS, Joint Working Group. Guidelines for clinical use of cardiac nuclear medicine (JCS 2010) – digest version –. Circ J. 2012;76:761–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Arumugam P, Harbinson M, Reyes E, Sabharwal N, Tonge C, Underwood R, et al. Procedure guidelines for radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging with single-photon emission computed tomography. Nucl Med Commun. 2013;34:813–26.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fathala A. Myocardial perfusion scintigraphy: techniques, interpretation, indications and reporting. Ann Saudi Med. 2011;31:625–34.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sun XX, Tian YQ, Wang DY, He ZX. Shortened acquisition time or reduced-activity dose for gated myocardial perfusion SPECT with new reconstruction algorithm. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;29:1287–93.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nakajima K, Okuda K, Momose M, Matsuo S, Kondo C, Sarai M, et al. IQ·SPECT technology and its clinical applications using multicenter normal databases. Ann Nucl Med. 2017;31:649–59.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Onoguchi M, Konishi T, Shibutani T, Matsuo S, Nakajima K. Technical Aspects Image Reconstruction. Ann Nucl Cardiol. 2016;2:68–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shibutani T, Nakajima K, Wakabayashi H, Mori H, Matsuo S, Yoneyama H, et al. Accuracy of an artificial neural network for detecting a regional abnormality in myocardial perfusion SPECT. Ann Nucl Med. 2019;33:86–92.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fiechter M, Ghadri JR, Kuest SM, Pazhenkottil AP, Wolfrum M, Nkoulou RN, et al. Nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging with a novel cadmium–zinc–telluride detector SPECT/CT device: first validation versus invasive coronary angiography. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:2025–30.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sharma P, Patel CD, Karunanithi S, Maharjan S, Malhotra A. Comparative accuracy of CT attenuation-corrected and non-attenuation-corrected SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging. Clin Nucl Med. 2012;37:332–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nkoulou R, Fuchs TA, Pazhenkottil AP, Kuest SM, Ghadri JR, Stehli J, et al. Absolute Myocardial Blood Flow and Flow Reserve Assessed by Gated SPECT with Cadmium–Zinc–Telluride Detectors Using 99mTc-Tetrofosmin: Head-to-Head Comparison with 13N-Ammonia PET. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:1887–922.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harel F, Génin R, Daou D, Lebtahi R, Delahaye N, Helal BO, et al. Clinical impact of combination of scatter, attenuation correction, and depth-dependent resolution recovery for (201)Tl studies. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:1451–6.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Velidaki A, Perisinakis K, Koukouraki S, Koutsikos J, Vardas P, Karkavitsas N. Clinical usefulness of attenuation and scatter correction in Tl-201 SPECT studies using coronary angiography as a reference. Hellenic J Cardiol. 2007;48:211–7.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yoneyama H, Nakajima K, Okuda K, Matsuo S, Onoguchi M, Kinuya S, et al. Reducing the small-heart effect in pediatric gated myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:1378–88.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Subcommittee on Survey of Nuclear Medicine Practice in Japan. The Present State of Nuclear Medicine Practice in Japan—a Report of the 8th Nationwide Survey in 2017. Radioisotopes. 2018;67:339–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Koskinen M, Pöyhönen L, Seppänen S. Thallium-201 washout in coronary artery disease using SPECT—a comparison with coronary angiography. Eur J Nucl Med. 1987;12:609–12.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bateman TM, Maddahi J, Gray RJ, Murphy FL, Garcia EV, Conklin CM, et al. Diffuse slow washout of myocardial thallium-201: a new scintigraphic indicator of extensive coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1984;4:55–64.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    He YM, Yang XJ, Wu YW, Zhang B. Twenty-four-hour thallium-201 imaging enhances the detection of myocardial ischemia and viability after myocardial infarction: a comparison study with echocardiography follow-up. Clin Nucl Med. 2009;34:65–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tamaki N, Ohtani H, Yonekura Y, Nohara R, Kambara H, Kawai C, et al. Significance of fill-in after thallium-201 reinjection following delayed imaging: comparison with regional wall motion and angiographic findings. J Nucl Med. 1990;31:1617–23.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Germano G, Erel J, Kiat H, Kavanagh PB, Berman DS. Quantitative LVEF and qualitative regional function from gated thallium-201 perfusion SPECT. J Nucl Med. 1997;38:749–54.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wang SJ, Chen YT, Hwang CL, Lin MS, Kao CH, Yeh SH. 99mTc-sestamibi can improve the inferior attenuation of TL-201 myocardial spect imaging. Int J Card Imaging. 1993;9:87–92.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    DePuey EG, Parmett S, Ghesani M, Rozanski A, Nichols K, Salensky H. Comparison of Tc-99m sestamibi and Tl-201 gated perfusion SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol. 1999;6:278–85.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chang SM, Nabi F, Xu J, Raza U, Mahmarian JJ. Normal stress-only versus standard stress/rest myocardial perfusion imaging: similar patient mortality with reduced radiation exposure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:221–30.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hitzel A, Manrique A, Cribier A, Véra P. Diagnostic value of Tl-201 lung uptake is dependent on measurement method. J Nucl Cardiol. 2001;8:332–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Boucher CA, Zir LM, Beller GA, Okada RD, McKusick KA, Strauss HW, et al. Increased lung uptake of thallium-201 during exercise myocardial imaging: clinical, hemodynamic and angiographic implications in patients with coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol. 1980;46:189–96.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    -Talavera P, Olmos R, -Esteban A, Ruiz MÁ, González ML, Gamazo C. Evaluation by SPECT-CT of an incidental finding of a thymoma and breast cancer in a myocardial perfusion SPECT with 99mTc-MIBI. Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol. 2013;32:260–2.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tseng JC, Hua CC, Tsai MF, Chang LC. Incidental detection of an invasive thymoma during thallium-201 imaging for coronary artery disease. Chang Gung Med J. 2004;27:138–42.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Markopoulos C, Sampalis F, Zerva C, Kiriaki D, Kitsou E, Alevizou-Terzaki V, Gogas J. 99mTc Tetrofosmin imaging in breast tumours. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 1998;19:163–6.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Georgoulias P, Tsougos I, Valotassiou V, Tzavara C, Xaplanteris P, Demakopoulos N. Long-term prognostic value of early poststress (99m)Tc-tetrofosmin lung uptake during exercise (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37(4):789–98.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Arsanjani R, Hayes SW, Fish M, Shalev A, Nakanishi R, Thomson LE, et al. Two-position supine/prone myocardial perfusion SPECT (MPS) imaging improves visual inter-observer correlation and agreement. J Nucl Cardiol. 2014;21:703–11.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nakaya K, Onoguchi M, Nishimura Y, Kiso K, Otsuka H, Nouno Y, et al. Criteria for the addition of prone imaging to myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography for inferior wall. Nucl Med Commun. 2017;38:748–55.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nakazato R, Tamarappoo BK, Kang X, Wolak A, Kite F, Hayes SW, et al. Quantitative upright-supine high-speed SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging for detection of coronary artery disease: correlation with invasive coronary angiography. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:1724–31.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nakaya K, Onoguchi M, Nishimura Y, Kiso K, Otsuka H, Nouno Y, et al. Comparison Between Prone and Upright Imaging of the Inferior Wall Using 201TlCl Myocardial Perfusion SPECT. J Nucl Med Technol. 2017;45(4):304–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nakajima K, Kumita S, Ishida Y, Momose M, Hashimoto J, Morita K, et al. Creation and characterization of Japanese standards for myocardial perfusion SPECT: database from the Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine Working Group. Ann Nucl Med. 2007;21:505–11.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nakajima K, Matsumoto N, Kasai T, Matsuo S, Kiso K, Okuda K. Normal values and standardization of parameters in nuclear cardiology: Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine working group database. Ann Nucl Med. 2016;30:188–99.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ohyama Y, Tomiguchi S, Kira T, Kira M, Tsuji A, Koi A, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of simultaneous acquisition of transmission and emission data with technetium-99m transmission source on thallium-201 myocardial SPECT. Ann Nucl Med. 2001;15:21–6.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Okuda K, Nakajima K, Matsuo S, Kondo C, Sarai M, Horiguchi Y, et al. Creation and characterization of normal myocardial perfusion imaging databases using the IQ·SPECT system. J Nucl Cardiol. 2018;25:1328–37.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ishihara M, Onoguchi M, Taniguchi Y, Shibutani T. Comparison of conventional and cadmium-zinc-telluride single-photon emission computed tomography for analysis of thallium-201 myocardial perfusion imaging: an exploratory study in normal databases for different ethnicities. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;33:2057–66.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Frey EC, Gilland KL, Tsui BM. Application of task-based measures of image quality to optimization and evaluation of three-dimensional reconstruction-based compensation methods in myocardial perfusion SPECT. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2002;21:1040–50.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jinghan Y, Xiyun S, Zuo Z, Da Silva. Iterative SPECT Reconstruction using matched filtering for improved image quality. In: Nuclear science symposium conference IEEE. 2006; p. 2285–2287.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Vija H, Hawman EG, Engdahl JC. Analysis of a SPECT OSEM reconstruction method with 3D beam modeling and optional attenuation correction: phantom studies. In: 2003 IEEE nuclear science symposium, Medical imaging conference. 2003, Portland, USA, p. 2662–2666.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Onishi H, Motomura N, Fujino K, Natsume T, Haramoto Y. Quantitative performance of advanced resolution recovery strategies on SPECT images: evaluation with use of digital phantom models. Radiol Phys Technol. 2013;6(1):42–53.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Taillefer R, DePuey EG, Udelson JE, Beller GA, Latour Y, Reeves F. Comparative diagnostic accuracy of Tl-201 and Tc-99m sestamibi SPECT imaging (perfusion and ECG-gated SPECT) in detecting coronary artery disease in women. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997;29:69–77.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Links JM, DePuey EG, Taillefer R, Becker LC. Attenuation correction and gating synergistically improve the diagnostic accuracy of myocardial perfusion SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol. 2002;9:183–7.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Nakajima K, Okuda K, Nyström K, Richter J, Minarik D, Wakabayashi H, et al. Improved quantification of small hearts for gated myocardial perfusion imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:1163–70.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Nichols K, Yao SS, Kamran M, Faber TL, Cooke CD, DePuey EG. Clinical impact of arrhythmias on gated SPECT cardiac myocardial perfusion and function assessment. J Nucl Cardiol. 2001;8:19–30.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Santana CA, Garcia EV, Faber TL, Sirineni GK, Esteves FP, Sanyal R, et al. Diagnostic performance of fusion of myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) and computed tomography coronary angiography. J Nucl Cardiol. 2009;16:201–11.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Yoneyama H, Nakajima K, Taki J, Wakabayashi H, Matsuo S, Konishi T, et al. Ability of artificial intelligence to diagnose coronary artery stenosis using hybrid images of coronary computed tomography angiography and myocardial perfusion SPECT. Eur J Hybrid Imaging. 2019;3:4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Lindner O, Burchert W, Schäfer W, Hacker M. Myocardial perfusion SPECT 2015 in Germany. Results of the 7th survey. Nuklearmedizin. 2017;56:31–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Otsuka R, Kubo N, Miyazaki Y, Kawahara M, Takaesu J, Fukuchi K. Current status of stress myocardial perfusion imaging pharmaceuticals and radiation exposure in Japan: results from a nationwide survey. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:1850–5.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Radiological Society 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Takayuki Shibutani
    • 1
    Email author
  • Koichi Okuda
    • 2
  • Hajime Ichikawa
    • 3
  • Toyohiro Kato
    • 3
  • Kenta Miwa
    • 4
  • Hiroyuki Tsushima
    • 5
  • Masahisa Onoguchi
    • 1
  • Akio Nagaki
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Quantum Medical Technology, Institute of Medical, Pharmaceutical and Health SciencesKanazawa UniversityKanazawaJapan
  2. 2.Department of PhysicsKanazawa Medical UniversityKahokuJapan
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyToyohashi Municipal HospitalToyohashiJapan
  4. 4.Department of Radiological Sciences, School of Health SciencesInternational University of Health and WelfareOhtawaraJapan
  5. 5.Department of Radiological SciencesIbaraki Prefectural University of Health SciencesIbarakiJapan
  6. 6.Department of Radiological TechnologyKurashiki Central HospitalKurashikiJapan

Personalised recommendations