Quantitative myocardial-perfusion SPECT: Comparison of three state-of-the-art software packages
- 263 Downloads
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).
There are differences in myocardial-perfusion quantification, diagnostic performance, and degree of automation of software packages.
Key WordsMyocardial perfusion imaging SPECT automatic quantification software coronary artery disease
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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
- 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.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.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.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
- 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