Annals of Nuclear Medicine

, Volume 25, Issue 8, pp 571–579 | Cite as

Quantification of myocardial perfusion SPECT using freeware package (cardioBull)

  • Koichi Okuda
  • Kenichi Nakajima
  • Tetsuo Hosoya
  • Takehiro Ishikawa
  • Shinro Matsuo
  • Masaya Kawano
  • Junichi Taki
  • Seigo Kinuya
Original article

Abstract

Objective

We have developed freeware package for automatically quantifying myocardial perfusion and 123I-labeled radiopharmaceutical single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), which is called “cardioBull”. We aim to evaluate diagnostic performance of the detection of coronary artery disease (CAD) on the developed software in comparison with commercially available software package [Quantitative Perfusion SPECT (QPS)].

Methods

Stress-rest 99mTc-sestamibi myocardial perfusion SPECT was performed in 36 patients with CAD and 35 control patients. A ≥75% stenosis in the coronary artery was identified by coronary angiography in the CAD group. Segmental perfusion defect score was automatically calculated by both cardioBull and QPS software. Summed stress score (SSS) was obtained to detect CAD by the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis. Areas under the ROC curves (AUC) were calculated in patient-based and coronary-based analyses.

Results

Mean SSSs showed no significant difference between cardioBull and QPS (6.0 ± 7.1 vs. 5.6 ± 7.0). The AUC for cardioBull was equivalent to that for QPS (0.91 ± 0.04 vs. 0.87 ± 0.04, p = n.s.). Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for cardioBull were 89, 74, and 82%, respectively. For the regional detection of CAD, the AUC showed largest value in left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) territory (0.86 ± 0.06 for cardioBull, 0.87 ± 0.06 for QPS, p = n.s.). Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of cardioBull were 70, 88, and 83% for the LAD; 91, 62, and 66% for the left circumflex coronary artery (LCx); and 78, 69, and 70% for the right coronary artery (RCA), respectively.

Conclusions

The AUC, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for the detection of CAD showed high diagnostic performance on the developed software. In addition, the developed software provided comparable diagnostic performance to the commercially available software package.

Keywords

Myocardial perfusion SPECT Automatic quantification Coronary artery disease Image processing 

References

  1. 1.
    Klocke FJ, Baird MG, Lorell BH, Bateman TM, Messer JV, Berman DS, et al. ACC/AHA/ASNC guidelines for the clinical use of cardiac radionuclide imaging—executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/ASNC Committee to Revise the 1995 Guidelines for the Clinical Use of Cardiac Radionuclide Imaging). Circulation. 2003;108:1404–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tamaki N. Guidelines for clinical use of cardiac nuclear medicine (JCS 2005). Circ J. 2005;69(Suppl IV):1125–202.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ficaro EP, Lee BC, Kritzman JN, Corbett JR. Corridor4DM: the Michigan method for quantitative nuclear cardiology. J Nucl Cardiol. 2007;14:455–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Garcia EV, Faber TL, Cooke CD, Folks RD, Chen J, Santana C. The increasing role of quantification in clinical nuclear cardiology: the Emory approach. J Nucl Cardiol. 2007;14:420–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Germano G, Kavanagh PB, Slomka PJ, Van Kriekinge SD, Pollard G, Berman DS. Quantitation in gated perfusion SPECT imaging: the Cedars-Sinai approach. J Nucl Cardiol. 2007;14:433–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dostbil Z, Ariturk Z, Cil H, Elbey MA, Tekbas E, Yazici M, et al. Comparison of left ventricular functional parameters obtained from three different commercial automated software cardiac quantification program packages and their intraobserver reproducibility. Ann Nucl Med. 2011;25:125–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Berman DS, Kang X, Gransar H, Gerlach J, Friedman JD, Hayes SW, et al. Quantitative assessment of myocardial perfusion abnormality on SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging is more reproducible than expert visual analysis. J Nucl Cardiol. 2009;16:45–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wolak A, Slomka PJ, Fish MB, Lorenzo S, Acampa W, Berman DS, et al. Quantitative myocardial-perfusion SPECT: comparison of three state-of-the-art software packages. J Nucl Cardiol. 2008;15:27–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guner LA, Karabacak NI, Cakir T, Akdemir OU, Kocaman SA, Cengel A, et al. Comparison of diagnostic performances of three different software packages in detecting coronary artery disease. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:2070–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Svensson A, Akesson L, Edenbrandt L. Quantification of myocardial perfusion defects using three different software packages. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:229–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Knollmann D, Knebel I, Koch KC, Gebhard M, Krohn T, Buell U, et al. Comparison of SSS and SRS calculated from normal databases provided by QPS and 4D-MSPECT manufacturers and from identical institutional normals. Eur J Nucl Med Mol I. 2008;35:311–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maes F, Collignon A, Vandermeulen D, Marchal G, Suetens P. Multimodality image registration by maximization of mutual information. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1997;16:187–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lin GS, Hines HH, Grant G, Taylor K, Ryals C. Automated quantification of myocardial ischemia and wall motion defects by use of cardiac SPECT polar mapping and 4-dimensional surface rendering. J Nucl Med Technol. 2006;34:3–17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nakajima K. Normal values for nuclear cardiology: Japanese databases for myocardial perfusion, fatty acid and sympathetic imaging and left ventricular function. Ann Nucl Med. 2010;24:125–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Akhter N, Nakajima K, Okuda K, Matsuo S, Yoneyama T, Taki J, et al. Regional wall thickening in gated myocardial perfusion SPECT in a Japanese population: effect of sex, radiotracer, rotation angles and frame rates. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:1608–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Matsuo S, Nakajima K, Yamashina S, Sakata K, Momose M, Hashimoto J, et al. Characterization of Japanese standards for myocardial sympathetic and metabolic imaging in comparison with perfusion imaging. Ann Nucl Med. 2009;23:517–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nakajima K, Matsuo S, Kawano M, Matsumoto N, Hashimoto J, Yoshinaga K, et al. The validity of multi-center common normal database for identifying myocardial ischemia: Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine working group database. Ann Nucl Med. 2009;24:99–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nakajima K, Okuda K, Kawano M, Matsuo S, Slomka P, Germano G, et al. The importance of population-specific normal database for quantification of myocardial ischemia: comparison between Japanese 360 and 180-degree databases and a US database. J Nucl Cardiol. 2009;16:422–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44:837–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Slomka PJ, Nishina H, Berman DS, Akincioglu C, Abidov A, Friedman JD, et al. Automated quantification of myocardial perfusion SPECT using simplified normal limits. J Nucl Cardiol. 2005;12:66–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tanaka R, Simada K. Approach to establishment of a standard index for regional washout of a myocardial perfusion agent. Ann Nucl Med. 2010;24:713–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nishina H, Slomka PJ, Abidov A, Yoda S, Akincioglu C, Kang X, et al. Combined supine and prone quantitative myocardial perfusion SPECT: method development and clinical validation in patients with no known coronary artery disease. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:51–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ficaro EP, Fessler JA, Shreve PD, Kritzman JN, Rose PA, Corbett JR. Simultaneous transmission/emission myocardial perfusion tomography. Diagnostic accuracy of attenuation-corrected 99mTc-sestamibi single-photon emission computed tomography. Circulation. 1996;93:463–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Utsunomiya D, Tomiguchi S, Shiraishi S, Yamada K, Honda T, Kawanaka K, et al. Initial experience with X-ray CT based attenuation correction in myocardial perfusion SPECT imaging using a combined SPECT/CT system. Ann Nucl Med. 2005;19:485–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Okuda K, Nakajima K, Motomura N, Kubota M, Yamaki N, Maeda H, et al. Attenuation correction of myocardial SPECT by scatter-photopeak window method in normal subjects. Ann Nucl Med. 2009;23:501–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tashiro K, Tomiguchi S, Shiraishi S, Yoshida M, Sakaguchi F, Yamashita Y. Clinical usefulness of a collimator distance dependent resolution recovery in myocardial perfusion SPECT: a clinical report from a single institute. Ann Nucl Med. 2011;25:133–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Koichi Okuda
    • 1
  • Kenichi Nakajima
    • 2
  • Tetsuo Hosoya
    • 3
  • Takehiro Ishikawa
    • 3
  • Shinro Matsuo
    • 2
  • Masaya Kawano
    • 4
  • Junichi Taki
    • 2
  • Seigo Kinuya
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Biotracer MedicineKanazawa University Graduate School of Medical ScienceKanazawaJapan
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear MedicineKanazawa University HospitalKanazawaJapan
  3. 3.Fujifilm RI Pharma Co., LtdTokyoJapan
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyWeill Cornell Medical College of Cornell UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations