COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE

CT attenuation correction for myocardial perfusion quantification using a PET/CT hybrid scanner

Pascal Koepfli, Thomas F Hany, Christophe A Wyss, Mehdi Namdar, Cyrill Burger, Alexander V Konstantinidis, Thomas Berthold, Gustav K Von Schulthess, Philipp A Kaufmann
Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2004, 45 (4): 537-42
15073247

UNLABELLED: In routine PET, a 10- to 20-min transmission scan with a rotating (68)Ge source is commonly obtained for attenuation correction (AC). AC is time-consuming using this procedure and could considerably be shortened by instead using a rapid CT scan. Our aim was to evaluate the feasibility of CT AC in quantitative myocardial perfusion PET using a hybrid PET/CT scanner.

METHODS: (13)N-labeled NH(3) and PET were used to measure myocardial blood flow (MBF) (mL/min/g) at rest and during standard adenosine stress. In group 1 (n = 7), CT scans (0.5 s) of the heart area with different tube currents (10, 40, 80, and 120 mA) were compared with a standard (68)Ge transmission (20 min) and with no AC. In group 2 (n = 3), the repeatability of 8 consecutive CT scans at a tube current of 10 mA was assessed. In group 3 (n = 4), emission was preceded and followed by 3 CT scans (10 mA) and 1 (68)Ge scan for each patient. For reconstruction, filtered backprojection (FBP) was compared with iterative reconstruction (IT).

RESULTS: For group 1, no significant difference in mean MBF for resting and hyperemic scans was found when emission reconstructed with (68)Ge AC was compared with emission reconstructed with CT AC at any of the different tube currents. Only emission without any correction differed significantly from (68)Ge AC. For group 2, repeated measurements revealed a coefficient of variance ranging from 2% to 5% and from 2% to 6% at rest and at stress, respectively. For group 3, similar reproducibility coefficients (RC) for MBF were obtained when (68)Ge AC(FBP) was compared with (68)Ge AC(IT) (RC = 0.218) and when CT AC(FBP) was compared with CT AC(IT) (RC = 0.227). Even better reproducibility (lower RC) was found when (68)Ge AC(FBP) was compared with CT AC(FBP) (RC = 0.130) and when (68)Ge AC(IT) was compared with CT AC(IT) (RC = 0.146).

CONCLUSION: Our study shows that for the assessment of qualitative and quantitative MBF with a hybrid PET/CT scanner, the use of CT AC (with a tube current of 10 mA) instead of (68)Ge AC provides accurate results.

Full Text Links

Find Full Text Links for this Article

Discussion

You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Related Papers

Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read
15073247
×

Save your favorite articles in one place with a free QxMD account.

×

Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"

We want to hear from doctors like you!

Take a second to answer a survey question.