RESUMO
BACKGROUND: 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose's (FDG) biodistribution limits the evaluation of cardiac sarcoidosis (CS) and neurosarcoidosis (NS). While protocols for cardiac suppression exist, they can be inconvenient for patients and lead to incomplete cardiac suppression in many cases. Furthermore, FDG PET is limited in the detection of neurosarcoidosis due to an inability to suppress high level of physiological uptake within the brain. 3'-deoxy-3'-[18F]fluorothymidine (FLT) has been shown to accumulate in sarcoidosis lesions and this tracer lacks significant physiological myocardial and brain uptake, suggesting that this tracer may be useful for the assessment of sarcoidosis, including CS and NS, without the need for patient preparation. This prospective pilot study examined the performance of FLT vs FDG PET for systemic sarcoidosis, including cardiac and neural involvement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen subjects with sarcoidosis were prospectively recruited and imaged with FDG- and FLT-PET. Two blinded, experienced readers independently reviewed the FLT-PET and FDG-PET images. Lesion distribution was compared between FLT and FDG. Agreement between FLT- and FDG-PET was determined using Cohen's kappa and the intra-class correlation coefficient. Inter-observer variability of FLT and FDG-PET was assessed. RESULTS: Twelve subjects had CS as per Heart Rhythm Society criteria and 1 had NS. FLT-PET was positive in 12 (86%), and FDG-PET in 11 (79%), with cardiac uptake present in 6 (50%) and 7 (58%) of subjects with CS, respectively. The subject with NS demonstrated uptake on both FLT and FDG-PET, with more lesions on FLT. There were no significant differences in the anatomical distribution of lesions between FLT and FDG. SUVs were significantly (p < 0.001) higher for FDG than FLT (5.8 ± 3.0 vs 2.3 ± 1.1, respectively), but not (p = 0.90) after adjusting for blood pool activity (2.8 ± 1.4 vs 2.8 ± 1.1, respectively). Agreement between FLT- and FDG-PET was good to excellent for the diagnosis of sarcoidosis, lung involvement, CS, and NS (κ = 0.76, 0.69, 0.86, and 1.0, respectively). Inter-observer agreement for FLT was excellent for diagnosing sarcoidosis, CS and NS (κ = 0.81, 0.85, and 1.0, respectively) and comparable to that of FDG. CONCLUSIONS: FLT-PET may be useful for the assessment of systemic sarcoidosis, as well as cardiac and neural involvement.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: IQ-SPECT has been shown to significantly reduce acquisition time and administered dose while preserving image quality in myocardial perfusion imaging. Whether IQ-SPECT provides accurate left ventricular ejection fractions (LVEF) with gated blood pool SPECT (GBPS) remains unknown. METHODS: Sixty patients underwent IQ-SPECT GBPS and planar imaging. Among those patients, 11 underwent both cMRI and GBPS. GBPS LVEF, LVEDV, and LVESV were calculated using 2 validated software; QBS (Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, USA) and MHI (Montreal Heart Institute, Montreal, Canada). LVEF, LVEDV, and LVESV obtained with the different modalities were compared. RESULTS: Average planar LVEF was 48 ± 11% (mean ± SD), average LVEDV was 177 ± 59 mL (range 63 to 342 mL), and average LVESV was 96 ± 46 mL (range 16 to 234 mL). GBPS LVEF and their correlation coefficient with planar LVEF were 40 ± 12% (r = 0.70) and 44 ± 12% (r = 0.83) with QBS and MHI, respectively. Correlation coefficient between cMRI and planar LVEF was 0.65 and were 0.69 and 0.52 between cMRI and GBPS using QBS and MHI, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: LVEF calculated with GBPS using IQ-SPECT correlates with planar measurements. Correlation is best using the MHI method and variation is independent of LVEDV.