Original Article
Comparative assessment of qualitative and quantitative perfusion with dual-energy CT and planar and SPECT-CT V/Q scanning in patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the qualitative and quantitative assessment of perfusion on dual-energy CT (DECT) and planar and single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)-CT V/Q scanning in patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH).
Methods: Nineteen patients with known CTEPH underwent both DECT and SPECT-CT V/Q scanning. Sixteen of these patients underwent planar V/Q imaging concurrently. Two readers independently graded DECT-perfused blood volume (PBV) defects on a four-point scale (0= normal, 1= mild <25%, 2= moderate 25–50%, 3= severe >50%). A grade was given for each lung lobe and for each of 18 lung segments. One reader graded the SPECT-CT images similarly. Quantitative measurements of lung perfusion were calculated with DECT and planar V/Q scanning for 16 of these patients.
Results: The inter-reader agreement on DECT was strong with agreement in 85% (258/304) of segments (kappa =0.86) and 84% (80/95) of lobes (kappa =0.82). The inter-modality agreement between DECT and SPECT-CT was lower. Readers 1 and 3 agreed in only 34% (103/304) of segments (kappa =0.25) and 33% (31/94) of lobes (kappa =0.22). Agreement between readers 2 and 3 was similar. Correlation between quantitative measurements with DECT and planar V/Q imaging was poor and ranged from 0.01 to 0.45.
Conclusions: Inter-observer agreement in subjective grading of PBV maps is excellent. However, inter-modality agreement between DECT and SPECT-CT is modest. Automated quantification values of PBV maps correlate poorly with established tools like planar V/Q imaging. These differences need to be kept in mind during clinical decision making.
Methods: Nineteen patients with known CTEPH underwent both DECT and SPECT-CT V/Q scanning. Sixteen of these patients underwent planar V/Q imaging concurrently. Two readers independently graded DECT-perfused blood volume (PBV) defects on a four-point scale (0= normal, 1= mild <25%, 2= moderate 25–50%, 3= severe >50%). A grade was given for each lung lobe and for each of 18 lung segments. One reader graded the SPECT-CT images similarly. Quantitative measurements of lung perfusion were calculated with DECT and planar V/Q scanning for 16 of these patients.
Results: The inter-reader agreement on DECT was strong with agreement in 85% (258/304) of segments (kappa =0.86) and 84% (80/95) of lobes (kappa =0.82). The inter-modality agreement between DECT and SPECT-CT was lower. Readers 1 and 3 agreed in only 34% (103/304) of segments (kappa =0.25) and 33% (31/94) of lobes (kappa =0.22). Agreement between readers 2 and 3 was similar. Correlation between quantitative measurements with DECT and planar V/Q imaging was poor and ranged from 0.01 to 0.45.
Conclusions: Inter-observer agreement in subjective grading of PBV maps is excellent. However, inter-modality agreement between DECT and SPECT-CT is modest. Automated quantification values of PBV maps correlate poorly with established tools like planar V/Q imaging. These differences need to be kept in mind during clinical decision making.
