Comparison, Agreement, and Significance Cutoffs of 18F-Flurpiridaz PET Myocardial Blood Flow Quantitation Methods and Software Packages

René R. Sevag Packard, Christopher Buckley, C. David Cooke, Jonathan B. Moody, Jennifer M. Renaud, Piotr Slomka, David Thompson, Serge D. Van Kriekinge, Kenneth F. Van Train, Kristen A. Wangerin, Jamshid Maddahi
{"title":"Comparison, Agreement, and Significance Cutoffs of 18F-Flurpiridaz PET Myocardial Blood Flow Quantitation Methods and Software Packages","authors":"René R. Sevag Packard, Christopher Buckley, C. David Cooke, Jonathan B. Moody, Jennifer M. Renaud, Piotr Slomka, David Thompson, Serge D. Van Kriekinge, Kenneth F. Van Train, Kristen A. Wangerin, Jamshid Maddahi","doi":"10.2967/jnumed.124.269398","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><sup>18</sup>F-flurpiridaz is a novel PET myocardial perfusion radiotracer with a high myocardial extraction fraction and low positron range, providing high-resolution images. Additionally, the linear relationship between <sup>18</sup>F-flurpiridaz myocardial extraction and myocardial blood flow (MBF) over a wide range of flow values permits accurate MBF measurement. Several groups have developed strategies to quantitate <sup>18</sup>F-flurpiridaz MBF with methodologic differences. These methods have not previously undergone head-to-head comparisons. <strong>Methods:</strong> Three methods of <sup>18</sup>F-flurpiridaz MBF quantitation were compared using Emory Cardiac Toolbox (ECTb; Syntermed), 4DM (INVIA), and Quantitative PET (QPET; Cedars-Sinai) software. All evaluable pharmacologic stress patients from the phase 3 <sup>18</sup>F-flurpiridaz PET trial (NCT03354273) of <sup>18</sup>F-flurpiridaz were included (<em>n</em> = 405). We adopted Bland–Altman plots to determine absolute differences between MBF quantitative methods, Fleiss κ for agreement across software packages, and Cohen κ for agreement of pairwise comparisons. Diagnostic performances of stress MBF and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) were determined by performing receiver-operating-characteristic analysis for areas under the curve (AUCs), using quantitative invasive coronary angiography as the reference standard. <strong>Results:</strong> Differences in mean stress MBF and MFR between methods across coronary territory distributions ranged from 0.23 to 0.29 mL/min/g and from 0.37 to 0.40 mL/min/g for ECTb and 4DM, respectively; from 0.09 to 0.11 mL/min/g and from 0.36 to 0.38 mL/min/g for ECTb and QPET, respectively; and from 0.25 to 0.26 mL/min/g and from 0.39 to 0.40 mL/min/g for QPET and 4DM, respectively. There was substantial agreement across software packages, with the Fleiss κ ranging from 0.77 to 0.79 and 0.72 to 0.75 for stress MBF and MFR, respectively. Similar results were found in pairwise comparisons. For coronary artery territories with at least 70% stenosis, median stress MBF and MFR AUCs were 0.73–0.74 and 0.71–0.73, respectively, when evaluated on a per-patient basis, and 0.75–0.77 and 0.74–0.75, respectively, in pooled coronary distributions on a per-vessel basis across all methods. <strong>Conclusion:</strong> All software packages demonstrated high agreement and similar <sup>18</sup>F-flurpiridaz MBF quantitation, paving the way for the interoperability of these platforms in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":22820,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Nuclear Medicine","volume":"736 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Nuclear Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.124.269398","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

18F-flurpiridaz is a novel PET myocardial perfusion radiotracer with a high myocardial extraction fraction and low positron range, providing high-resolution images. Additionally, the linear relationship between 18F-flurpiridaz myocardial extraction and myocardial blood flow (MBF) over a wide range of flow values permits accurate MBF measurement. Several groups have developed strategies to quantitate 18F-flurpiridaz MBF with methodologic differences. These methods have not previously undergone head-to-head comparisons. Methods: Three methods of 18F-flurpiridaz MBF quantitation were compared using Emory Cardiac Toolbox (ECTb; Syntermed), 4DM (INVIA), and Quantitative PET (QPET; Cedars-Sinai) software. All evaluable pharmacologic stress patients from the phase 3 18F-flurpiridaz PET trial (NCT03354273) of 18F-flurpiridaz were included (n = 405). We adopted Bland–Altman plots to determine absolute differences between MBF quantitative methods, Fleiss κ for agreement across software packages, and Cohen κ for agreement of pairwise comparisons. Diagnostic performances of stress MBF and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) were determined by performing receiver-operating-characteristic analysis for areas under the curve (AUCs), using quantitative invasive coronary angiography as the reference standard. Results: Differences in mean stress MBF and MFR between methods across coronary territory distributions ranged from 0.23 to 0.29 mL/min/g and from 0.37 to 0.40 mL/min/g for ECTb and 4DM, respectively; from 0.09 to 0.11 mL/min/g and from 0.36 to 0.38 mL/min/g for ECTb and QPET, respectively; and from 0.25 to 0.26 mL/min/g and from 0.39 to 0.40 mL/min/g for QPET and 4DM, respectively. There was substantial agreement across software packages, with the Fleiss κ ranging from 0.77 to 0.79 and 0.72 to 0.75 for stress MBF and MFR, respectively. Similar results were found in pairwise comparisons. For coronary artery territories with at least 70% stenosis, median stress MBF and MFR AUCs were 0.73–0.74 and 0.71–0.73, respectively, when evaluated on a per-patient basis, and 0.75–0.77 and 0.74–0.75, respectively, in pooled coronary distributions on a per-vessel basis across all methods. Conclusion: All software packages demonstrated high agreement and similar 18F-flurpiridaz MBF quantitation, paving the way for the interoperability of these platforms in clinical practice.

18F-Flurpiridaz PET心肌血流量定量方法和软件包的比较、一致性和意义截止点
18F-flurpiridaz是一种新型PET心肌灌注放射性示踪剂,具有高心肌提取率和低正电子范围,提供高分辨率图像。此外,18F-flurpiridaz心肌提取与心肌血流量(MBF)之间的线性关系在很大范围内的流量值允许精确的MBF测量。几个小组已经开发出了量化18f -氟吡唑MBF的方法差异策略。这些方法以前没有进行过直接比较。方法:采用Emory Cardiac Toolbox (ECTb)对18f -氟吡嗪MBF的三种定量方法进行比较;synterminology)、4DM (INVIA)和定量PET (QPET;西奈)软件。所有来自18F-flurpiridaz 3期PET试验(NCT03354273)的可评估的药理学应激患者被纳入(n = 405)。我们采用Bland-Altman图来确定MBF定量方法之间的绝对差异,Fleiss κ表示跨软件包的一致性,Cohen κ表示两两比较的一致性。以定量有创冠状动脉造影为参考标准,对曲线下面积(aus)进行受体-操作特征分析,确定应激MBF和心肌血流储备(MFR)的诊断性能。结果:ECTb和4DM的平均应激MBF和MFR在冠状动脉区域分布上的差异分别为0.23 ~ 0.29 mL/min/g和0.37 ~ 0.40 mL/min/g;ECTb和QPET分别为0.09 ~ 0.11 mL/min/g和0.36 ~ 0.38 mL/min/g;QPET和4DM分别为0.25 ~ 0.26 mL/min/g和0.39 ~ 0.40 mL/min/g。不同软件包之间存在很大的一致性,应力MBF和MFR的Fleiss κ值分别为0.77 ~ 0.79和0.72 ~ 0.75。两两比较也发现了类似的结果。对于至少70%狭窄的冠状动脉区域,以每位患者为基础评估时,中位压力MBF和MFR auc分别为0.73-0.74和0.71-0.73,在所有方法中,以每根血管为基础的合并冠状动脉分布分别为0.75-0.77和0.74-0.75。结论:所有软件包均表现出高一致性和相似的18f -氟吡达兹MBF定量,为这些平台在临床实践中的互操作性铺平了道路。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信