Advertisement

Journal of Nuclear Cardiology

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 27–34 | Cite as

Quantitative myocardial-perfusion SPECT: Comparison of three state-of-the-art software packages

  • Arik Wolak
  • Piotr J. Slomka
  • Mathews B. Fish
  • Santiago Lorenzo
  • Wanda Acampa
  • Daniel S. Berman
  • Guido Germano
Original Articles

Abstract

Background

We almed to compare the automation and diagnostic performance in the detection of coronary artery disease (CAD) of the 4DMSPECT (4DM), Emory Cardiac Toolbox (EMO), and QPS systems for automated quantification of myocardial perfusion.

Methods and Results

We studied 328 patients referred for rest/stress Tc-99m sestamibi imaging, 140 low-likelihood patients and 188 with angiography. Contours were corrected when necessary. All other processing was fully automated. A 17-segment analysis was performed, and a summed stress score (SSS) ≥4 was considered abnormal. The average SSSs (±SD) for 4DM, EMO, and QPS were 10.5±9.4, 11.1±8.3, and 10.1±8.9 respectively (P=.02 for QPS versus EMO). The receiver operator characteristics areas-under-the-curve for the detection of CAD (±SEM) were 0.84±0.03, 0.76±0.04, and 0.88±0.03 for 4DM, EMO, and QPS, respectively (P=.001 for QPS versus EMO, and P=.03 for 4DM versus EMO), Normalcy rate was higher for QPS and 4DM versus EMO, at 91% and 94% versus 77%, respectively (P=.02). Sensitivity was higher for QPS (87%) versus 4DM (80%) (P=.045). Specificity was higher for QPS (71%) versus EMO (49%) (P=.01). The accuracy rate was higher for QPS versus 4DM and EMO, at 83% versus 77% and 76%, respectively, (P=.05).

Conclusions

There are differences in myocardial-perfusion quantification, diagnostic performance, and degree of automation of software packages.

Key Words

Myocardial perfusion imaging SPECT automatic quantification software coronary artery disease 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Akesson L, Svensson A, Edenbrandt L. Operator dependent variability in quantitative analysis of myocardial perfusion images. Clin Physiol Funct Imag 2004;24:374–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berman DS, Kiat H, Friedman JD, Wang FP, van Train K, Matzer L, et al. Separate acquisition rest thallium-201/stress technetium-99m sestamibi dual-isotope myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography: a clinical validation study. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993;22:1455–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berman DS, Abidov A, Kang X, Hayes SW, Friedman JD, Sciammarella MG, et al. Prognostic validation of a 17-segment score derived from a 20-segment score for myocardial perfusion SPECT interpretation. J Nucl Cardiol 2004;11:414–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Verberne HJ, Habraken JB, van Royen EA, Tiel-van Buul MM, Piek, JJ, van Eck-Smit BL. Quantitative analysis of 99Tcm-sestamibi myocardial perfusion SPECT using a three-dimensional reference heart: a comparison with experienced observers. Nucl Med Commun 2001;22:155–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Germano G, Kavanagh PB, Waechter P, Areeda J, Van Kriekinge S, Sharir T, et al. A new algorithm for the quantitation of myocardial perfusion SPECT. I: technical principles and reproducibility. J Nucl Med 2000;41:712–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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
  7. 7.
    Ficaro EP, Corbett JR. Advances in quantitative perfusion SPECT imaging. J Nucl Cardiol 2004;11:62–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Faber TL, Cooke CD, Folks RD, Vansant JP, Nichols KJ, DePuey EG, et al. Left ventricular function and perfusion from gated SPECT perfusion images: an integrated method. J Nucl Med 1999;40:650–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Svensson A, Akesson L, Edenbrandt L. Quantification of myocardial perfusion defects using three different software packages. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imag 2004;31:229–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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
  11. 11.
    The Regents of the University of Michigan. Operating instructions, 4D-MSPECT with esoft. Vol Publication #87 18 699 Revision 01 ed. Hoffman Estates, IL: Siemens;2004.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Germano G, Gerlach J. QPS & ARG—generic user manual. Report no. QPS-UM-GENERIC-001-rev3-02NL. Los Angeles. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine Program, Department of Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 2004.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kritzman J, Ficaro E, Liu Y, Wackers F, Corbett J. Evaluation of 3D-MSPECT for quantification of Tc-99m sestamibi defect size. J Nucl Med 1999;40:181P.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vansant J, Krawczynska E, Shen Y, Folks RD, Kauppi AC, Garcia EV, et al. The prognostic value of quantitative indices of Tc-99m sestamibi SPECT. J Nucl Med 1998;39:115P-6P.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Heller LI, Cates C, Popma J, Deckelbaum LI, Joye JD, Dahlberg ST, et al. Intracoronary Doppler assessment of moderate coronary artery disease: comparison with 201Tl imaging and coronary angiography. Circulation 1997;96:484–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 1983;148:839–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    De Sutter J, Van de Wiele C, D'Asseler Y, De Bondt P, De Backer G, Rigo P, et al. Automatic quantification of defect size using normal templates: a comparative clinical study of three commercially available algorithms. Eur J Nucl Med 2000;27: 1827–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maddahi J, Van Train K, Prigent F, Garcia EV, Friedman J, Ostrzega E, et al. Quantitative single photon emission computed thallium-201 tomography for detection and localization of coronary artery disease optimization and prospective validation of a new technique. J Am Coll Cardiol 1989;14: 1689–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Society of Nuclear Cardiology 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arik Wolak
    • 1
  • Piotr J. Slomka
    • 2
  • Mathews B. Fish
    • 3
  • Santiago Lorenzo
    • 4
  • Wanda Acampa
    • 1
  • Daniel S. Berman
    • 1
  • Guido Germano
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Imaging and MedicineCedars-Sinai Medical CenterLos Angeles
  2. 2.Artificial Intelligence in Medicine/Department of ImagingCedars-Sinai Medical CenterLos Angeles
  3. 3.Oregon Heart and Vascular InstituteSacred Heart Medical CenterEugene
  4. 4.Department of Human PhysiologyUniversity of OregonEugene

Personalised recommendations