Journal of Nuclear Cardiology

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 455–465 | Cite as

Corridor4DM: The Michigan method for quantitative nuclear cardiology

  • Edward P. Ficaro
  • Benjamin C. Lee
  • James N. Kritzman
  • James R. Corbett
ASNC Presentations

Abstract

Quantitative software for the analysis and review of myocardial perfusion emission computed tomography images is an indispensable tool in the nuclear physician’s evaluation of patients with known or suspected heart disease. The Corridor4DM (4DM) application (formerly known as 4DM-SPECT), developed at the University of Michigan Medical Center, is a quantitative software application providing automated processing, analysis, and reporting of myocardial perfusion and function from cardiac emission computed tomography studies in a tightly integrated, user-centered environment. With health care placing increased emphasis on higher quality and efficiency in diagnostic imaging, quantitative analysis and review software applications need to provide a comprehensive environment supporting correlative review of multimodality images, integrated report generation, and remote review capabilities. The current and future design capabilities of the 4DM software application are discussed with respect to the changing landscape of imaging, where cardiac computed tomography, positron emission tomography, structured reporting, and remote review are expanding the base requirement specifications for quantitative software.

Keywords

Quantitative Software Myocar Dial Yocardial Perfusion Jection Fraction Perfusion Emission Compute Tomography Image 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    DePuey EG, Corbett JR, Friedman JD, et al. Imaging guidelines for nuclear cardiology procedures. J Nucl Cardiol 2006;13:e21–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kritzman JN, Ficaro EP, Liu Y, et al. Evaluation of 3D-MSPECT for quantification of Te-99m sestamibi defect size [abstract] J Nucl Med 1999;40: 181P.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ficaro EP, Quaife RA, Kritzman JN, et al. Accuracy of reproducibility of 3D-MSPECT for estimating left ventricular ejection fraction in patients with severe perfusion abaormalities [abstract]. Circulation 1999;100:126.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cahill JM, Chen MY, Corbett JR, et al. Validation of three-dimensional analysis method for calculation of the lv mass and ejection fraction using Tc-99m sestamibi gated-SPECT perfusion imaging: comparison between 4D-MSPECT and magnetic resonance imaging [abstract]. J Nucl Med 2003;44: 197P.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cahill JM, Chen MY, Ficaro EP, et al. Validation of 4D-MSPECT analysis method for Tc-99m gated blood pool tomography: comparison of LV ejection fractions and volumes to magnetic resonance imaging [abstract]. J Nucl Cardiol 2003;10:S20.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Quaife RA, Ficaro EP, Corbett JR. Automated quantitation of infarct size and potential myocardial salvage following first myocardial infarctions [abstract]. J Nucl Med 2000;41: 166P.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schaefer WM, Lipke CSA, Nowak B, et al. Validation of QGS and 4D-MSPECT for quantification of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction from gated 18F-FDG PET: comparison with cardiac MRI. J Nucl Med 2004;45:74–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schaefer WM, Lipke CSA, Standke D, et al. Quantification of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction from gated 99m Tc-MIBI SPECT: MRI validation and comparison of the Emory Cardiac Tool Box with QGS and 4D-MSPECT. J Nucl Med 2005;46:1256–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ficaro EP, Kritzman JN, Corbett JR. Effect of valve plane constraint on LV ejection fractions from gated perfusion SPECT [abstract]. J Nucl Cardiol 2003;10:S23.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moore CC, Lugo-Olivieri CH, McVeigh ER, et al. Three-dimensional systolic strain patterns in the normal human left ventricle: characterization with tagged MR imaging. Radiology 2000;214:453–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kaul S, Wismer GL, Brady TJ, et al. Measurement of normal left heart dimensions using optimally oriented MR images. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1986;146:75–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Malm S, Sagberg E, Larsson H, et al. Choosing apical long-axis instead of two-chamber view gives more accurate biplane echocardiographic measurements of left ventricular ejection fraction: a comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2005;18:1044–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maceira A, Prasad S, Khan M, et al. Normalized left ventricular systolic and diastolic function by steady state free precession cardiovascular magnetic resonance. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2006;8:417–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ficaro EP, Quaife RA, Kritzman JN, et al. Validation of a new fully automatic algorithm for quantification of gated blood pool SPECT: correlations with planar gated blood pool and perfusion SPECT [abstract]. J Nucl Med 2002;43:97P.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kritzman JN, Ficaro EP, Corbett JR. Comparison of diastolic function parameter estimates from planar and SPECT blood pool imaging [abstract]. J Nucl Cardiol 2004;11:S7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sheehan FH, Stewart DK, Dodge HT, et al. Variability in the measurement of regional left ventricular wafl motion from contrast angiograms. Circulation 1983;68:550–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Diamond GA, Forrester JS. Analysis of probability as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 1979; 300:1350–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ficaro EP, Kritzman JN, Corbett JR. Development and clinical validation of normal Tc-99m sestamibi database: comparison of 3D-MSPECT to Cequal [abstract]. J Nucl Med 1999;40: 125P.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Coleman RE, Delbeke D, Guiberteau MJ, et al. Concurrent PET/CT with an integrated imaging system: intersociety dialogue from the Joint Working Group of the American College of Radiology, the Society of Nuclear Medicine, and the Society of Computed Body Tomography and Magnetic Resonance. J Nucl Med 2005;46:1225–39.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Society of Nuclear Cardiology 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edward P. Ficaro
    • 1
  • Benjamin C. Lee
    • 1
  • James N. Kritzman
    • 1
  • James R. Corbett
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Division of Nuclear MedicineUniversity of Michigan Medical CenterAnn Arbor

Personalised recommendations