PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Sergey Nesterov
AU  - Roberto Sciagra
AU  - Adam Alessio
AU  - Jerome Declerck
AU  - Edward Ficaro
AU  - Piotr Slomka
AU  - Keiichiro Yoshinaga
AU  - Stephan Nekolla
AU  - James Case
AU  - John Prior
TI  - RUBY-10: A cross-comparison study of 10 software tools for quantification of Rb-82 myocardial perfusion PET
DP  - 2013 May 01
TA  - Journal of Nuclear Medicine
PG  - 1693--1693
VI  - 54
IP  - supplement 2
4099  - http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/54/supplement_2/1693.short
4100  - http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/54/supplement_2/1693.full
SO  - J Nucl Med2013 May 01; 54
AB  - 1693 Objectives To cross-compare MBF estimates from Rb-82 PET data for 8 models implemented in 10 software tools (SWT): Carimas, Corridor4DM, FlowQuant, HOQUTO, ImagenQ, MunichHeart, PMOD, QPET, syngo.MBF, UW-QPP. Methods Rest and stress Rb-82 PET/CT scans (10MBq/kg, 3D acquisition) of 48 patients with suspected or known CAD were analyzed in 10 centers. Each center used one of 10 SWT to analyze global and regional (LAD, LCx and RCA) MBF. Values were considered to agree if they simultaneously had an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)>0.75 and a difference <20% of median MBF of all models for studied parameter. Results MBF estimates from all 7 SWT implementing 1TCM as in Lortie et al. (2007) were in agreement with one another on studied levels. Results of the model by El Fakhri et al. (2009) as in Corridor4DM were also in excellent agreement with the Lortie’s 1TCM, so were the results of the axially-distributed blood flow model (Alessio et al. 2011) in UW-QPP, yet, with occasional differences of >20% of median values from the Lortie’s 1TCM. The MBF estimates from 2TCM (PMOD, Herrero et al. 1992), and net retention models (ImagenQ - Yoshida et al. 1996, MunichHeart - Lautamäki et al. 2008), though producing similar results were less correlated with Lortie’s 1TCM (ICC<0.75). Results from 1TCMs (Corridor4DM - Murthy et al. 2011, HOQUTO - Katoh et al. 2012) could not be directly compared to results from other models. Conclusions SWT using the same 1TCM (Lortie et al. 2007), provide nearly equivalent results in measuring global and regional MBF (rest and stress), suggesting that they may be clinically interchanged for the benefit of multicenter trials in future.