Advertisement

Coronary artery 18F-NaF PET analysis with the use of an elastic motion correction software

  • Jamie W. BellingeEmail author
  • Kamran Majeed
  • Stuart S. Carr
  • Judson Jones
  • Inki Hong
  • Roslyn J. Francis
  • Carl J. Schultz
Original Article

Abstract

Introduction

18F-Sodium Fluoride Positron Emission Tomography (18F-NaF PET) is a novel molecular imaging modality with promise for use as a risk stratification tool in cardiovascular disease. There are limitations in the analysis of small and rapidly moving coronary arteries using traditional PET technology. We aimed to validate the use of a motion correction algorithm (eMoco) on coronary 18F-NaF PET outcome parameters.

Methods

Patients admitted with an acute coronary syndrome underwent 18F-NaF PET and computed tomography coronary angiography. 18F-NaF PET data were analyzed using a diastolic reconstruction, an ungated reconstruction and the eMoco reconstruction.

Results

Twenty patients underwent 18F-NaF PET imaging and 17 patients had at least one positive lesion that could be used to compare PET reconstruction datasets. eMoco improved noise (the coefficient of variation of the blood pool radiotracer activity) compared to the diastolic dataset (0.09 [0.07 to 0.12] vs 0.14[0.11 to 0.17], p < .001) and marginally improved coronary lesion maximum tissue-to-background ratios compared to the ungated dataset (1.33 [1.05 to 1.48]vs 1.29 [1.04 to 1.40], p = .011).

Conclusion

In this pilot dataset, the eMoco reconstruction algorithm for motion correction appears to have potential in improving coronary analysis of 18F-NaF PET by reducing noise and increasing maximum counts. Further testing in a larger patient dataset is warranted.

Keywords

CAD PET Image reconstruction 

Abbreviations

18F-NaF

18F-sodium fluoride

PET

Positron emission tomography

eMoco

Elastic motion correction

CT

Computed tomography

CTCA

Computed tomographic coronary angiography

ACCT

Attenuation correction computed tomography

ACS

Acute coronary syndrome

ROI

Region of interest

SUV

Standardized uptake value

TBR

Tissue to background

Notes

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of the WA PET service staff for performing participant imaging and scan reconstructions, with particular acknowledgement of Andrea Giacomet and Simone Culleton for their assistance in the project.

Disclosure

Inki Hong and Judson Jones are employees of Siemens Medical Solutions. Authors J Bellinge, K Majeed, S Carr, R Francis, and C Schultz have no relevant conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

12350_2018_1587_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (12.2 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 12513 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    World Health Organisation. Global Atlas on cardiovascular disease prevention and control. Geneva. 2011. Cited 22 July 2018. http://www.who.int/cardiovascular_diseases/publications/atlas_cvd/en/.
  2. 2.
    Fayad ZA, Mani V, Woodward M, Kallend D, Abt M, Burgess T, et al. Safety and efficacy of dalcetrapib on atherosclerotic disease using novel non-invasive multimodality imaging (dal-PLAQUE): A randomised clinical trial. Lancet 2011;378:1547-59.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rudd JHF, Myers KS, Bansilal S, Machac J, Rafique A, Farkouh M, et al. 18Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging of atherosclerotic plaque inflammation is highly reproducible. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;50:892-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Joshi NV, Vesey AT, Williams MC, Shah AS, Calvert PA, Craighead FH, et al. 18F-fluoride positron emission tomography for identification of ruptured and high-risk coronary atherosclerotic plaques: A prospective clinical trial. Lancet 2014;383:705-13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Irkle A, Vesey AT, Lewis DY, Skepper JN, Bird JLE, Dweck MR, et al. Identifying active vascular microcalcification by (18)F-sodium fluoride positron emission tomography. Nat Commun 2015;6:7495.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee JM, Bang J-I, Koo B-K, Hwang D, Park J, Zhang J, et al. Clinical relevance of (18)F-sodium fluoride positron-emission tomography in noninvasive identification of high-risk plaque in patients with coronary artery disease. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2017;10:e006704.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ehara S, Kobayashi Y, Yoshiyama M, Shimada K, Shimada Y. Spotty calcification typifies the culprit plaque in patients with acute myocardial infarction: An intravascular ultrasound study. Circulation 2004;110:3424-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Budoff MJ, Young R, Lopez VA, Kronmal RA, Nasir K, Blumenthal RS, et al. Progression of coronary calcium and incident coronary heart disease events MESA (multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis). J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;61:1231-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Budoff MJ, Hokanson JE, Nasir K, Shaw LJ, Kinney GL, Chow D, et al. Progression of coronary artery calcium predicts all-cause mortality. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2010;3:1229-36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bellinge JW, Francis RJ, Majeed K, Watts GF, Schultz CJ. In search of the vulnerable patient or the vulnerable plaque: 18F-sodium fluoride positron emission tomography for cardiovascular risk stratification. J Nucl Cardiol 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-018-1360-2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dweck MR, Chow MWL, Joshi NV, Williams MC, Jones C, Fletcher AM, et al. Coronary arterial 18F-sodium fluoride uptake: A novel marker of plaque biology. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;59:1539-48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rubeaux M, Joshi NV, Dweck MR, Fletcher A, Motwani M, Thomson LE, et al. Motion correction of 18F-NaF PET for imaging coronary atherosclerotic plaques. J Nucl Med 2016;57:54-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hong I, Jones J, Casey M. Ultrafast Elastic motion correction via motion deblurring. In: 2014 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference, (NSS/MIC); 2014, Seattle, WA, pp. 2-3.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pawade TA, Cartlidge TRG, Jenkins WSA, Adamson PD, Robson P, Lucatelli C, et al. Optimization and reproducibility of aortic valve 18F-fluoride positron emission tomography in patients with aortic stenosis. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2016;9:e005131.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yan J, Schaefferkoette J, Conti M, Townsend D. A method to assess image quality for Low-dose PET: Analysis of SNR, CNR, bias and image noise. Cancer Imaging 2016;16:26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Doris MK, Rubeaux M, Pawade T, Otaki Y, Xie Y, Li D, et al. Motion-corrected imaging of the aortic valve with 18 F-NaF PET/CT and PET/MRI: A feasibility study. J Nucl Med 2017;58:1811-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dawood M, Gigengack F, Jiang X, Schäfers KP. A mass conservation-based optical flow method for cardiac motion correction in 3D-PET. Med Phys 2013;40:012505.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Robson PM, Dweck MR, Trivieri MG, Abgral R, Karakatsanis NA, Contreras J, et al. Coronary artery PET/MR imaging. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2017;10:1103-12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jaskowiak CJ, Bianco JA, Perlman SB, Fine JP. Influence of reconstruction iterations on 18F-FDG PET/CT standardized uptake values. J Nucl Med 2005;46:424-8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tarkin JM, Joshi FR, Evans NR, Chowdhury MM, Figg NL, Shah AV, et al. Detection of atherosclerotic inflammation by 68 Ga-DOTATATE PET compared to [18F]FDG PET imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;69:1774-91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rubeaux M, Joshi N, Dweck MR, Fletcher A, Motwani M, Thomson LE, et al. Demons versus level-set motion registration for coronary 18 F-sodium fluoride PET. In: Styner MA, Angelini ED, editors. Proceedings of SPIE—the International Society for Optical Engineering. NIH Public Access; 2016.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Doris MK, Otaki Y, Krishnan SK, Kwiecinski J, Rubeaux M, Alessio A, et al. Optimization of reconstruction and quantification of motion-corrected coronary PET-CT. J Nucl Cardiol 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-018-1317-5.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cal-Gonzalez J, Li X, Heber D, Rausch I, Moore SC, Schäfers K, et al. Partial volume correction for improved PET quantification in 18F-NaF imaging of atherosclerotic plaques. J Nucl Cardiol 2018;25:1742-56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Society of Nuclear Cardiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jamie W. Bellinge
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Kamran Majeed
    • 1
    • 2
  • Stuart S. Carr
    • 2
  • Judson Jones
    • 3
  • Inki Hong
    • 3
  • Roslyn J. Francis
    • 2
    • 4
  • Carl J. Schultz
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Cardiology DepartmentRoyal Perth HospitalPerthAustralia
  2. 2.School of MedicineUniversity of Western AustraliaCrawleyAustralia
  3. 3.Molecular ImagingSiemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc.KnoxvilleUSA
  4. 4.Nuclear Medicine DepartmentSir Charles Gairdner HospitalNedlandsAustralia

Personalised recommendations