Do myocardial PET–MR and PET–CT FDG images provide comparable information?

• Published in: Journal of nuclear cardiology 2016-10, Vol.23 (5), p.1102-1109
• Main Authors: Oldan, Jorge D., Shah, Shetal N., Brunken, Richard C., DiFilippo, Frank P., Obuchowski, Nancy A., Bolen, Michael A.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Attenuation and scatter correction; Cardiac Imaging Techniques - methods; Cardiology; Computer Simulation; Female; Fluorodeoxyglucose F18 - pharmacokinetics; Heart - diagnostic imaging; Humans; Image Enhancement - methods; Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods; image quality; Imaging; instrumentation: PET; Male; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Middle Aged; Models, Cardiovascular; Myocardium - metabolism; Nuclear Medicine; Original Article; PET/CT imaging; Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography - methods; Radiology; radionuclides; Radiopharmaceuticals - pharmacokinetics; Reproducibility of Results; Sensitivity and Specificity; Young Adult
• ISSN: 1071-3581; 1532-6551
• DOI: 10.1007/s12350-015-0159-7

Although positron emission tomography PET–MR imaging is emerging into clinical practice, many aspects of this imaging technique such as attenuation correction have yet to be validated for myocardial imaging. Thus, it is uncertain whether PET–MR FDG images provide clinical information which is comparable to PET–CT FDG images. The study goal was to systematically compare relative myocardial FDG concentrations obtained from cardiac PET–MR images to those derived from same day PET–CT images. Myocardial FDG images of 27 patients undergoing PET–CT imaging, followed by PET–MR imaging 42 ± 13 minutes later as part of a prospective oncology study were analyzed. Mean segmental standardized uptake measurements (SUVmean) were obtained in each of the 17 standard myocardial segments and normalized to the brightest segment. Normalized segmental SUVmean values did not differ significantly between the PET–MR and PET–CT images (mean difference 0.002, P = .826). The specific segment was a marginally significant predictor of the differences (P = .057), with the largest difference in the anteroseptal basal segment. PET–MR, vis-à-vis PET–CT, does not significantly raise segmental uptake relative to the brightest segment, suggesting that PET–MR can be used similarly to PET–CT for applications where relative uptake is important.