Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Selection of PET Camera and Implications on the Reliability and Accuracy of Absolute Myocardial Blood Flow Quantification

  • Nuclear Cardiology (V Dilsizian, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Cardiology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

PET scanner design and performance evaluation has been driven historically by the imaging requirements for whole-body imaging in oncology. Cardiac PET imaging for accurate quantification of myocardial blood flow (MBF) using short-lived tracers such as rubidium-82 imposes additional requirements for wide dynamic range and high count-rate accuracy. This paper examines the technical challenges encountered in cardiac imaging of myocardial perfusion and blood flow quantification.

Recent Findings

The newest PET-CT scanners using digital silicon photomultiplier technology have high absolute sensitivity (4–20%) and time-of-flight resolution (3–7 cm) which further improves image quality. The concept of “integral” noise equivalent counts (iNEC) is introduced to compare scanner count-rate performance over the wide dynamic range encountered in MBF imaging with rubidium-82.

Summary

The latest-generation digital PET scanners with wide axial field-of-view and enhanced time-of-flight resolution should enable accurate quantification of MBF, without any compromise in the quality of conventional ECG-gated myocardial perfusion images.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Yoshinaga K, Katoh C, Manabe O, Klein R, Naya M, Sakakibara M, et al. Incremental diagnostic value of regional myocardial blood flow quantification over relative perfusion imaging with generator-produced rubidium-82 PET. Circ J. 2011;75:2628–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ziadi MC, deKemp RA, Williams KA, Guo A, Chow BJW, Renaud JM, et al. Impaired myocardial flow reserve on rubidium-82 positron emission tomography imaging predicts adverse outcomes in patients assessed for myocardial ischemia. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:740–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ziadi MC, Dekemp RA, Williams K, et al. Does quantification of myocardial flow reserve using rubidium-82 positron emission tomography facilitate detection of multivessel coronary artery disease? J Nucl Cardiol. 2012;19:670–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Murthy VL, Naya M, Foster CR, Hainer J, Gaber M, di Carli G, et al. Improved cardiac risk assessment with non-invasive measures of coronary flow reserve. Circulation. 2011;124:2215–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Klein R, Beanlands RSB, deKemp RA. Quantification of myocardial blood flow and flow reserve: technical aspects. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17:555–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Murthy VL, Bateman TM, Beanlands RS, Berman DS, Borges-Neto S, Chareonthaitawee P, et al. Clinical quantification of myocardial blood flow using PET: joint position paper of the SNMMI Cardiovascular Council and the ASNC. J Nucl Cardiol. 2018;25:269–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bateman T. American Society of Nuclear Cardiology and Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging joint position statement on the clinical indications for myocardial perfusion PET. J Nucl Cardiol. 2016;23:1227–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Tahari AK, Lee A, Rajaram M, Fukushima K, Lodge MA, Lee BC, et al. Absolute myocardial flow quantification with 82Rb PET/CT: comparison of different software packages and methods. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:126–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Nesterov SV, Deshayes E, Sciagrà R, Settimo L, Declerck JM, Pan XB, et al. Quantification of myocardial blood flow in absolute terms using 82Rb PET imaging. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7:1119–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. • Renaud JM, Yip K, Guimond J, et al. Characterization of 3-dimensional PET systems for accurate quantification of myocardial blood flow. J Nucl Med. 2017;58:103–9 This study developed a method to evaluate the high count-rate performance of PET scanners, as observed during first-pass dynamic imaging for accurate quantification of myocardial blood flow.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Klein R, Ocneanu A, Renaud JM, Ziadi MC, Beanlands RSB, deKemp RA. Consistent tracer administration profile improves test–retest repeatability of myocardial blood flow quantification with 82Rb dynamic PET imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2018;25:929–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cherry SR, Jones T, Karp JS, Qi J, Moses WW, Badawi RD. Total-body PET: maximizing sensitivity to create new opportunities for clinical research and patient care. J Nucl Med. 2018;59:3–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Badawi RD, Shi H, Hu P, Chen S, Xu T, Price PM, et al. First human imaging studies with the EXPLORER total-body PET scanner. J Nucl Med. 2019;60:299–303.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Vandenberghe S, Mikhaylova E, D’Hoe E, Mollet P, Karp JS. Recent developments in time-of-flight PET. EJNMMI Phys. 2016;3:3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Surti S. Update on time-of-flight PET imaging. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:98–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. NEMA NU 2-2018. Performance measurements of positron emission tomographs (PET). 2018. Available at https://www.nema.org/Standards/Pages/Performance-Measurements-of-Positron-Emission-Tomographs.aspx.

  17. Budinger TF. Time-of-flight positron emission tomography: status relative to conventional PET. J Nucl Med. 1983;24:73–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Zhang J, Maniawski P, Knopp MV. Performance evaluation of the next generation solid-state digital photon counting PET/CT system. EJNMMI Res. 2018;8:97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. van Sluis J, de Jong J, Schaar J, Noordzij W, van Snick P, Dierckx R, et al. Performance characteristics of the digital biograph vision PET/CT system. J Nucl Med. 2019;60:1031–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Pan T, Einstein SA, Kappadath SC, Grogg KS, Lois Gomez C, Alessio AM, et al. Performance evaluation of the 5-ring GE Discovery MI PET/CT system using the national electrical manufacturers association NU 2-2012 standard. Med Phys. 2019;46:3025–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Li X, Qi W, Miyahara M, Kolthammer J. Performance characterization of an SiPM-based time-of-flight Canon PET/CT scanner. J Nucl Med. 2020;61(S1):14 [abstract].

    Google Scholar 

  22. Klein R, Celiker-Guler E, Rotstein BH, deKemp RA. PET and SPECT tracers for myocardial perfusion imaging. Semin Nucl Med. 2020;50:208–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Wangerin K, Ahn S, Ross SG, Kinahan PE, Manjeshwar RM (2015) Improving lesion detectability in PET imaging with a penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm. In: Mello-Thoms CR, Kupinski MA (eds). Orlando, Florida, United States, p 94160W.

  24. Kesner AL, Chung JH, Lind KE, Kwak JJ, Lynch D, Burckhardt D, et al. Validation of software gating: a practical technology for respiratory motion correction in PET. Radiology. 2016;281:239–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Manwell S, Klein R, Xu T, deKemp RA. Clinical comparison of the positron emission tracking (PeTrack) algorithm with the real-time position management system for respiratory gating in cardiac positron emission tomography. Med Phys. 2020;47:1713–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Feng T, Wang J, Fung G, Tsui B. Non-rigid dual respiratory and cardiac motion correction methods after, during, and before image reconstruction for 4D cardiac PET. Phys Med Biol. 2016;61:151–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. •• Armstrong IS, Hayden C, Memmot MJ, Arumugam P (2020) A preliminary evaluation of a high temporal resolution data-driven motion correction algorithm for rubidium-82 on a SiPM PET-CT system. J Nucl Cardiol. Online First. Myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) quality can be improved dramatically using a second-by-second correction of patient body motion within the PET image reconstruction process.

  28. Presotto L, Busnardo E, Perani D, Gianolli L, Gilardi MC, Bettinardi V. Simultaneous reconstruction of attenuation and activity in cardiac PET can remove CT misalignment artifacts. J Nucl Cardiol. 2015;23:1086–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hunter C, Presotto L, Klein R, Pelletier-Galarneau M, Ruddy TR, Dekemp R. P303-maximum likelihood reconstruction of activity and attenuation (MLAA) for CO2 stress in Rb-82 PET/CT respiratory gated imaging. Eur Heart J - Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019;20(3):jez148.031. https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jez148.031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Petibon Y, Rakvongthai Y, El Fakhri G, Ouyang J. Direct parametric reconstruction in dynamic PET myocardial perfusion imaging: in vivo studies. Phys Med Biol. 2017;62:3539–65.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Lodge MA, Carson RE, Carrasquillo JA, Whatley M, Libutti SK, Bacharach SL. Parametric images of blood flow in oncology PET studies using [15O]water. J Nucl Med. 2000;41:1784–92.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. •• Germino M, Carson RE. Cardiac-gated parametric images from 82 Rb PET from dynamic frames and direct 4D reconstruction. Med Phys. 2018;45:639–54 This study demonstrated the ability reconstruct ECG-gated images of myocardial blood flow (ml/min/g) directly from the raw coincidence PET data, including compensation for respiratory-motion.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. van Dijk JD, Jager PL, van Osch JAC, Khodaverdi M, van Dalen JA. Comparison of maximal Rubidium-82 activities for myocardial blood flow quantification between digital and conventional PET systems. J Nucl Cardiol. 2019;26:1286–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. deKemp RA, Genoud P, Pappon M, Kamani C, Gnesi S, Prior JO. Dynamic range of the newest digital PET-CT scanner for myocardial blood flow quantification using rubidium-82. J Nucl Med. 2020;61:334.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Reddin JS, Scheuermann JS, Bharkhada D, Smith AM, Casey ME, Conti M, Karp J (2018) Performance evaluation of the SiPM-based Siemens Biograph Vision PET/CT System. 2018 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference Proceedings (NSS/MIC), Sydney, Australia, 2018, pp. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/NSSMIC.2018.8824710.

  36. United Imaging uMI 780 Data Sheet. Available at https://usa.united-imaging.com/products/molecular-imaging/umi-780/.

  37. Rausch I, Ruiz A, Valverde-Pascual I, Cal-González J, Beyer T, Carrio I. Performance evaluation of the Vereos PET/CT system according to the NEMA NU2-2012 standard. J Nucl Med. 2019;60:561–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada

    Ran Klein

  2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Canada

    Ran Klein

  3. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada

    Robert A. deKemp

  4. National Cardiac PET Centre, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, 40 Ruskin St, Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4W7, Canada

    Robert A. deKemp

Authors
  1. Ran Klein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert A. deKemp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert A. deKemp.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Ran Klein and Robert deKemp are consultants with Jubilant DRAXimage and have received grant funding from university/industry partnership programs including GE Healthcare, Jubilant DRAXimage, Shelley Medical Solutions, and Hermes Medical Solutions. They receive revenues from rubidium generator technologies licensed to Jubilant DRAXimage and revenue shares from the sale of FlowQuant®.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Nuclear Cardiology

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Klein, R., deKemp, R.A. Selection of PET Camera and Implications on the Reliability and Accuracy of Absolute Myocardial Blood Flow Quantification. Curr Cardiol Rep 22, 109 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-020-01376-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-020-01376-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation