Background Challenges to cardiac PET-CT include patient motion, prolonged image acquisition and a reduction of counts due to gating. We compared two analytical tools, FusionQuant and OsiriX, for quantification of… Click to show full abstract
Background Challenges to cardiac PET-CT include patient motion, prolonged image acquisition and a reduction of counts due to gating. We compared two analytical tools, FusionQuant and OsiriX, for quantification of gated cardiac 18F-sodium fluoride (18F-fluoride) PET-CT imaging. Methods Twenty-seven patients with aortic stenosis were included, 15 of whom underwent repeated imaging 4 weeks apart. Agreement between analytical tools and scan-rescan reproducibility was determined using the Bland–Altman method and Lin’s concordance correlation coefficients (CCC). Results Image analysis was faster with FusionQuant [median time (IQR) 7:10 (6:40-8:20) minutes] compared with OsiriX [8:30 (8:00-10:10) minutes, p = .002]. Agreement of uptake measurements between programs was excellent, CCC = 0.972 (95% CI 0.949-0.995) for mean tissue-to-background ratio (TBR mean ) and 0.981 (95% CI 0.965-0.997) for maximum tissue-to-background ratio (TBR max ). Mean noise decreased from 11.7% in the diastolic gate to 6.7% in motion-corrected images ( p = .002); SNR increased from 25.41 to 41.13 ( p = .0001). Aortic valve scan-rescan reproducibility for TBR max was improved with FusionQuant using motion correction compared to OsiriX (error ± 36% vs ± 13%, p < .001) while reproducibility for TBR mean was similar (± 10% vs ± 8% p = .252). Conclusion 18F-fluoride PET quantification with FusionQuant and OsiriX is comparable. FusionQuant with motion correction offers advantages with respect to analysis time and reproducibility of TBR max values.
               
Click one of the above tabs to view related content.