Advertisement

Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

, Volume 51, Issue 2, pp 161–168 | Cite as

Comparison of Two Different Segmentation Methods on Planar Lung Perfusion Scan with Reference to Quantitative Value on SPECT/CT

  • Minseok Suh
  • Yeon-koo Kang
  • Seunggyun Ha
  • Yong-il Kim
  • Jin Chul Paeng
  • Gi Jeong CheonEmail author
  • Samina Park
  • Young Tae Kim
  • Dong Soo Lee
  • E. Edmund Kim
  • June-Key Chung
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Until now, there was no single standardized regional segmentation method of planar lung perfusion scan. We compared planar scan based two segmentation methods, which are frequently used in the Society of Nuclear Medicine, with reference to the lung perfusion single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)/computed tomography (CT) derived values in lung cancer patients.

Methods

Fifty-five lung cancer patients (male:female, 37:18; age, 67.8 ± 10.7 years) were evaluated. The patients underwent planar scan and SPECT/CT after injection of technetium-99 m macroaggregated albumin (Tc-99 m-MAA). The % uptake and predicted postoperative percentage forced expiratory volume in 1 s (ppoFEV1%) derived from both posterior oblique (PO) and anterior posterior (AP) methods were compared with SPECT/CT derived parameters. Concordance analysis, paired comparison, reproducibility analysis and spearman correlation analysis were conducted.

Results

The % uptake derived from PO method showed higher concordance with SPECT/CT derived % uptake in every lobe compared to AP method. Both methods showed significantly different lobar distribution of % uptake compared to SPECT/CT. For the target region, ppoFEV1% measured from PO method showed higher concordance with SPECT/CT, but lower reproducibility compared to AP method. Preliminary data revealed that every method significantly correlated with actual postoperative FEV1%, with SPECT/CT showing the best correlation.

Conclusion

The PO method derived values showed better concordance with SPECT/CT compared to the AP method. Both PO and AP methods showed significantly different lobar distribution compared to SPECT/CT. In clinical practice such difference according to different methods and lobes should be considered for more accurate postoperative lung function prediction.

Keywords

Lung cancer Lung function Perfusion imaging SPECT-CT 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Minseok Suh, Yeon-koo Kang, Seunggyun Ha, Yong-il Kim, Jin Chul Paeng, Gi Jeong Cheon, Young Tae Kim, Samina Park, Dong Soo Lee, E. Edmund Kim, and June-Key Chung declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Statement

The original article was approved by an institutional review board (IRB No. 1605-040-760) and has been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. The institutional review board waived the need to obtain informed consent from the patient. Details that might disclose the identity of the subject were omitted.

References

  1. 1.
    Ettinger D, Bepler G, Bueno R, Chang A, Chang J, Chirieac L, et al. Non-small cell lung cancer clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2006;4:548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pierce RJ, Copland JM, Sharpe K, Barter CE. Preoperative risk evaluation for lung cancer resection: predicted postoperative product as a predictor of surgical mortality. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1994;150:947–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bolliger CT, Jordan P, Solèr M, Stulz P, Grädel E, Skarvan K, et al. Exercise capacity as a predictor of postoperative complications in lung resection candidates. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1995;151:1472–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Markos J, Mullan BP, Hillman DR, Musk AW, Antico VF, Lovegrove FT, et al. Preoperative assessment as a predictor of mortality and morbidity after lung resection. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1989;139:902–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boushy S, Helgason A, Billig D, Gyorky F. Clinical, physiologic, and morphologic examination of the lung in patients with bronchogenic carcinoma and the relation of the findings to postoperative deaths 1, 2. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1970;101:685–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vansteenkiste J, De Ruysscher D, Eberhardt W, Lim E, Senan S, Felip E, et al. Early and locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:89–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ferguson MK, Watson S, Johnson E, Vigneswaran WT. Predicted postoperative lung function is associated with all-cause long-term mortality after major lung resection for cancer. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014;45:660–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Parker JA, Coleman RE, Grady E, Royal HD, Siegel BA, Stabin MG, et al. SNM practice guideline for lung scintigraphy 4.0. J Nucl Med Technol. 2012;40:57–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Roach PJ, Gradinscak DJ, Schembri GP, Bailey EA, Willowson KP, Bailey DL, editors. Spect/ct in v/q scanning. Semin Nucl Med; 2010;40:455–66.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Toney LK, Wanner M, Miyaoka RS, Alessio AM, Wood DE, Vesselle H. Improved prediction of lobar perfusion contribution using technetium-99m–labeled macroaggregate of albumin single photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography with attenuation correction. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;148:2345–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gutte H, Mortensen J, Jensen CV, Johnbeck CB, von der Recke P, Petersen CL, et al. Detection of pulmonary embolism with combined ventilation–perfusion SPECT and low-dose CT: head-to-head comparison with multidetector CT angiography. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:1987–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Suga K, Kawakami Y, Zaki M, Yamashita T, Shimizu K, Matsunaga N. Clinical utility of co-registered respiratory-gated 99mTc-Technegas/MAA SPECT-CT images in the assessment of regional lung functional impairment in patients with lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:1280–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nielsen PE, Kirchner PT, Gerber FH. Oblique views in lung perfusion scanning: clinical utility and limitations. J Nucl Med. 1977;18(10):967–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bland JM, Altman D. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;327:307–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Win T, Laroche CM, Groves AM, White C, Wells FC, Ritchie AJ, et al. Use of quantitative lung scintigraphy to predict postoperative pulmonary function in lung cancer patients undergoing lobectomy. Ann Thorac Surg. 2004;78:1215–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bolliger CT, Gückel C, Engel H, Stöhr S, Wyser CP, Schoetzau A, et al. Prediction of functional reserves after lung resection: comparison between quantitative computed tomography, scintigraphy, and anatomy. Respiration. 2002;69:482–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62:10–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kirsh MM, Rotman H, Argenta L, Bove E, Cimmino V, Tashian J, et al. Carcinoma of the lung: results of treatment over ten years. Ann Thorac Surg. 1976;21:371–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hole D, Watt G, Davey-Smith G, Hart C, Gillis C, Hawthorne V. Impaired lung function and mortality risk in men and women: findings from the Renfrew and Paisley prospective population study. BMJ. 1996;313:711–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Berry MF, Yang C-FJ, Hartwig MG, Tong BC, Harpole DH, D’Amico TA, et al. Impact of pulmonary function measurements on long-term survival after lobectomy for stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;100:271–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fishman A, Martinez F, Naunheim K, Piantadosi S, Wise R, Ries A, et al. A randomized trial comparing lung-volume-reduction surgery with medical therapy for severe emphysema. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2059–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Nuclear Medicine 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Minseok Suh
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yeon-koo Kang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Seunggyun Ha
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yong-il Kim
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jin Chul Paeng
    • 1
  • Gi Jeong Cheon
    • 1
    Email author
  • Samina Park
    • 3
  • Young Tae Kim
    • 3
  • Dong Soo Lee
    • 1
    • 2
  • E. Edmund Kim
    • 2
    • 4
  • June-Key Chung
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear MedicineSeoul National University HospitalSeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Graduate School of Convergence Science and TechnologySeoul National UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  3. 3.Department of Thosracic SurgerySeoul National University HospitalSeoulSouth Korea
  4. 4.Department of Radiological SciencesUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations