The first works on myocardial perfusion quantitation in humans date back to the early 1990s [1–4]. Since then, the advantages of quantitative perfusion measurement in myocardial imaging have been regularly highlighted. Quantitative perfusion PET has been recommended for early detection of patients at risk of coronary artery disease as well as for monitoring the effects of therapeutic interventions [5]. Besides, measuring regional flow reserve leads to an improved detection of multivessel disease and the possibility of assessing not only the culprit lesion but also lower grade stenosis [6, 7].
So why is it after all these years of myocardial quantitative perfusion measurement and its uncontested clinical relevance that the paper by Sergey V. Nesterov et al. [8] is important enough to be published in this journal?
In my opinion the reason is that we have not yet done our homework. We need tools that are readily available, reliable and well validated to be able to introduce the quantification of myocardial blood flow into clinical routine. I would like to compare perfusion PET with gated myocardial SPECT in this light. For gated SPECT there are several software solutions, which are both well validated and user-friendly. Performance of gated SPECT has been extensively validated, e.g. by comparison with magnetic resonance imaging [9]. Every manufacturer can sell you a SPECT system that is able to acquire and analyse gated SPECT out of the box. We are far away from that in perfusion PET imaging and will be falling behind even further because modern PET/CT scanners are increasingly optimized for oncological whole-body imaging. How about the interpretation of the results of an investigation with regard to patient prognosis and the need for intervention? Once again there is a huge database on myocardial SPECT, reflected in the number of publications in this area [10–13]. The prognostic value of both perfusion scores and left ventricular ejection fraction derived from gated SPECT has been clearly shown [14]. In myocardial perfusion PET, one will even have problems to find normal values for coronary flow reserve or coronary resistance in humans. And we are even much further away from having substantial data on the prognostic value of quantitative myocardial perfusion PET.
In my opinion, it is time to get perfusion PET ready for the future before it becomes another forgotten method of the past because it was too cumbersome to apply. Integrated cardiac PET/CT imaging offers the opportunity to reveal both the location of anatomical stenoses and their physiological significance [15]. This development will most probably strengthen the role of noninvasive cardiac imaging in the future. I do not think it would be wise to give away our special advantage and reduce myocardial perfusion PET to high-resolution myocardial SPECT. So the presentation, validation, and dissemination of software tools such as the one presented in this paper are the key to the future of quantitative myocardial perfusion PET and this warrants publication in this journal.
References
Beanlands RS, Muzik O, Mintun M, Mangner T, Lee K, Petry N, et al. The kinetics of copper-62-PTSM in the normal human heart. J Nucl Med 1992;33:684–90.
Kagaya A, Yoshida K, Endo M, Himi T, Niwayama H, Masuda Y, et al. Quantitation of regional myocardial blood flow using continuous inhalation of C15O2 and positron emission tomography. Kaku Igaku 1993;30:1–12.
Schwaiger M. Myocardial perfusion imaging with PET. J Nucl Med 1994;35:693–8.
Schwaiger M, Hutchins G. Quantification of regional myocardial perfusion by PET: rationale and first clinical results. Eur Heart J 1995;16 Suppl J:84–91.
Campisi R, Di Carli MF. Assessment of coronary flow reserve and microcirculation: a clinical perspective. J Nucl Cardiol 2004;11:3–11.
Di Carli M, Czernin J, Hoh CK, Gerbaudo VH, Brunken RC, Huang SC, et al. Relation among stenosis severity, myocardial blood flow, and flow reserve in patients with coronary artery disease. Circulation 1995;91:1944–51.
Di Carli MF, Dorbala S, Meserve J, El Fakhri G, Sitek A, Moore SC. Clinical myocardial perfusion PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2007;48:783–93.
Nesterov SV, Han C, Mäki M, Kajander S, Naum AG, Helenius H, et al. Myocardial perfusion quantitation with (15)O-labelled water PET: high reproducibility of the new cardiac analysis software (Carimas). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009. doi:10.1007/s00259-009-1143-8.
Sciagra R. The expanding role of left ventricular functional assessment using gated myocardial perfusion SPECT: the supporting actor is stealing the scene. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34:1107–22. doi:10.1007/s00259-007-0405-6.
Hachamovitch R, Berman DS. The use of nuclear cardiology in clinical decision making. Semin Nucl Med 2005;35:62–72.
Hachamovitch R, Hayes SW, Friedman JD, Cohen I, Berman DS. Stress myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography is clinically effective and cost effective in risk stratification of patients with a high likelihood of coronary artery disease (CAD) but no known CAD. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;43:200–8.
Hachamovitch R, Hayes SW, Friedman JD, Cohen I, Berman DS. A prognostic score for prediction of cardiac mortality risk after adenosine stress myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;45:722–9.
Hachamovitch R, Rozanski A, Hayes SW, Thomson LE, Germano G, Friedman JD, et al. Predicting therapeutic benefit from myocardial revascularization procedures: are measurements of both resting left ventricular ejection fraction and stress-induced myocardial ischemia necessary? J Nucl Cardiol 2006;13:768–78. doi:10.1016/j.nuclcard.2006.08.017.
Shaw LJ, Iskandrian AE. Prognostic value of gated myocardial perfusion SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol 2004;11:171–85. doi:10.1016/j.nuclcard.2003.12.004.
Di Carli MF, Dorbala S. Integrated PET/CT for cardiac imaging. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006;50:44–52.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This Editorial Commentary refers to the article http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00259-009-1143-8
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fricke, E. Myocardial perfusion quantitation with PET: time to do our homework. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 36, 1592–1593 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-009-1184-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-009-1184-z