Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of diagnostic performances of three different software packages in detecting coronary artery disease

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Quantification of myocardial perfusion scintigraphy is frequently performed to assist physicians in detecting coronary artery disease (CAD). Software packages provide automated quantification of perfusion data. We aimed to compare the three commonly used software packages, Emory Cardiac Toolbox (ECT v2 and ECT v3), 4D-MSPECT (4DM v2 and 4DM v4) and Quantitative Perfusion SPECT (QPS v3 and QPS v4).

Methods

We selected 283 patients who had a myocardial perfusion scintigraphy with 201Tl followed by coronary angiography within 3 months. Summed stress score (SSS), summed difference score (SDS), total stress defect extent (TDE) and regional stress defect extent values were obtained from programs. A ≥70% stenosis in coronary arteries and their major branches was considered positive for CAD. A subgroup of patients was used to form an institutional normal database for QPS and 4DM. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to detect CAD was performed.

Results

Mean SSS ± SD (vendor) for ECT v3, QPS v4 and 4DM v4 were 9.2 ± 7.1, 10.1 ± 6.8 and 5.5 ± 6.1, respectively. Area under the curve (AUC) values of SSS ROC analysis were 0.738 ± 0.031 for QPS v3, 0.755 ± 0.030 for QPS v4, 0.758 ± 0.030 for ECT v2, 0.778 ± 0.029 for ECT v3 and 0.771 ± 0.030 for 4DM v4. The AUC values for TDE were 0.755 ± 0.030 for QPS v4, 0.769 ± 0.030 for ECT v3 and 0.775 ± 0.029 for 4DM v4. The differences were not significant for both SSS and TDE. Differences of AUC between regional stress defect extent values of programs and AUC of SSS between institutional and vendor normal databases were not significant.

Conclusion

The diagnostic performances of programs to detect CAD are similar. However, there are differences in the magnitudes of the quantitative values produced by the programs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rochmis P, Blackburn H. Exercise tests. A survey of procedures, safety, and litigation experience in approximately 170,000 tests. JAMA 1971;217:1061–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cerqueira MD, Verani MS, Schwaiger M, Heo J, Iskandrian AS. Safety profile of adenosine stress perfusion imaging: results from the Adenoscan Multicenter Trial Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 1994;23:384–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Abreu A, Mahmarian JJ, Nishimura S, Boyce TM, Verani MS. Tolerance and safety of pharmacologic coronary vasodilation with adenosine in association with thallium-201 scintigraphy in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 1991;18:730–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lette J, Tatum JL, Fraser S, Miller DD, Waters DD, Heller G, et al. Safety of dipyridamole testing in 73,806 patients: the Multicenter Dipyridamole Safety Study. J Nucl Cardiol 1995;2:3–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mertes H, Sawada SG, Ryan T, Segar DS, Kovacs R, Foltz J, et al. Symptoms, adverse effects, and complications associated with dobutamine stress echocardiography. Experience in 1118 patients. Circulation 1993;88:15–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Candell-Riera J, Santana-Boado C, Bermejo B, Armadans L, Castell J, Casáns I, et al. Interhospital observer agreement in interpretation of exercise myocardial Tc-99m tetrofosmin SPECT studies. J Nucl Cardiol 2001;8:49–57. doi:10.1067/mnc.2001.110388.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Brambilla M, Inglese E, Cannizzaro G, Dondi M, Sara R, Arrigo F, et al. A multicenter trial on interobserver and intraobserver reproducibility of segmental scoring of thallium-201 planar myocardial imaging before and after reinjection. Italian Group of Nuclear Cardiology. J Nucl Med 1994;35:601–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Garcia EV, Faber TL, Cooke CD, Folks RD, Chen J, Santana C. The increasing role of quantification in clinical nuclear cardiology: the Emory approach. J Nucl Cardiol 2007;14:420–32. doi:S1071-3581(07)00297-8[pii]10.1016/j.nuclcard.2007.06.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Germano G, Kavanagh PB, Slomka PJ, Van Kriekinge SD, Pollard G, Berman DS. Quantitation in gated perfusion SPECT imaging: the Cedars-Sinai approach. J Nucl Cardiol 2007;14:433–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Akesson L, Svensson A, Edenbrandt L. Operator dependent variability in quantitative analysis of myocardial perfusion images. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging 2004;24:374–9. doi:10.1111/j.1475-097X.2004.00574.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wolak A, Slomka PJ, Fish MB, Lorenzo S, Acampa W, Berman DS, et al. Quantitative myocardial-perfusion SPECT: comparison of three state-of-the-art software packages. J Nucl Cardiol 2008;15:27–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Svensson A, Akesson L, Edenbrandt L. Quantification of myocardial perfusion defects using three different software packages. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004;31:229–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Knollmann D, Knebel I, Koch KC, Gebhard M, Krohn T, Buell U, et al. Comparison of SSS and SRS calculated from normal databases provided by QPS and 4D-MSPECT manufacturers and from identical institutional normals. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008;35:311–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Marcassa C, Bax JJ, Bengel F, Hesse B, Petersen CL, Reyes E, et al. Clinical value, cost-effectiveness, and safety of myocardial perfusion scintigraphy: a position statement. Eur Heart J 2008;29:557–63. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehm607.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nishimura T, Nakajima K, Kusuoka H, Yamashina A, Nishimura S. Prognostic study of risk stratification among Japanese patients with ischemic heart disease using gated myocardial perfusion SPECT: J-ACCESS study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008;35:319–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hachamovitch R, Berman DS, Kiat H, Cohen I, Cabico JA, Friedman J, et al. Exercise myocardial perfusion SPECT in patients without known coronary artery disease: incremental prognostic value and use in risk stratification. Circulation 1996;93:905–14.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hachamovitch R, Hayes SW, Friedman JD, Cohen I, Berman DS. Stress myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography is clinically effective and cost effective in risk stratification of patients with a high likelihood of coronary artery disease (CAD) but no known CAD. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;43:200–8. doi:S0735109703014268.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Nakajima K, Okuda K, Kawano M, Matsuo S, Slomka P, Germano G, et al. The importance of population-specific normal database for quantification of myocardial ischemia: comparison between Japanese 360 and 180-degree databases and a US database. J Nucl Cardiol 2009;16:422–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. White CW, Wright CB, Doty DB, Hiratza LF, Eastham CL, Harrison DG, et al. Does visual interpretation of the coronary arteriogram predict the physiologic importance of a coronary stenosis? N Engl J Med 1984;310:819–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Toft J, Lindahl D, Ohlsson M, Palmer J, Lundin A, Edenbrandt L, et al. The optimal reference population for cardiac normality in myocardial SPET in the detection of coronary artery stenoses: patients with normal coronary angiography or subjects with low likelihood of coronary artery disease? Eur J Nucl Med 2001;28:831–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Slomka PJ, Nishina H, Berman DS, Kang X, Friedman JD, Hayes SW, et al. Automatic quantification of myocardial perfusion stress-rest change: a new measure of ischemia. J Nucl Med 2004;45:183–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Gazi University School of Medicine, Besevler, Ankara, Turkey

    Levent A. Guner, Nese Ilgin Karabacak, Tansel Cakir, Ozgur U. Akdemir & Mustafa Unlu

  2. Department of Cardiology, Gazi University School of Medicine, Besevler, Ankara, Turkey

    Sinan A. Kocaman & Atiye Cengel

  3. Gazi University Tip Fakultesi, Nukleer Tip Anabilim Dali, Besevler, Ankara, Turkey

    Levent A. Guner

Authors
  1. Levent A. Guner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nese Ilgin Karabacak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tansel Cakir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ozgur U. Akdemir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sinan A. Kocaman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Atiye Cengel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mustafa Unlu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Levent A. Guner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Guner, L.A., Karabacak, N.I., Cakir, T. et al. Comparison of diagnostic performances of three different software packages in detecting coronary artery disease. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 37, 2070–2078 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-010-1522-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-010-1522-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation