Animal experimental study on multiple imaging methods for the diagnosis of acute pulmonary em-bolism by SPECT/CT
10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-2848.2016.01.017
- VernacularTitle:SP ECT／CT不同显像方法诊断急性肺栓塞的动物实验研究
- Author:
Qingkui LIU
;
Ping CHEN
;
Haiping LIU
;
Peng HOU
;
Xiangping LIU
;
Jilong QIN
;
Dongyun LUO
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Pulmonary embolism;
Tomography,emission-computed,single-photon;
Tomography,X-ray computed;
Radionuclide imaging;
MAA;
Rabbits
- From:
Chinese Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
2016;(1):70-75
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To evaluate the diagnostic efficiency of Q?SPECT, CTPA, Q?SPECT/CT, and Q?SPECT/CTPA for pulmonary embolism (PE) in rabbit models. Methods (1) The PE models were constructed by injecting Gelfoam into the femoral vein of New Zealand rabbits ( n=30) . Q?SPECT, CTPA, Q?SPECT/CT and Q?SPECT/CTPA fusion images were obtained by integrated SPECT/CT. (2) All images were interpreted by two experienced nuclear radiologists who were blind to pathologic findings. The locations and numbers of lung lobes with PE were recorded respectively. ( 3) Serial sectioning of the lungs was per?formed and pathologically determined. (4) Se, Sp and Ac of different methods were compared using McNemar test;PPV and NPV were compared usingχ2 test. Kappa test was used to analyze the consistency between two nuclear radiologists. Kappa values<0.40 were interpreted as poor consistency, 0.40 to 0.75 as moderate con?sistency, >0.75 as good consistency. Results (1) Histologically confirmed emboli were present in a total of 26 pulmonary lobes and absent in 79 lobes. (2)The Se, Sp, Ac, PPV, and NPV of 4 imaging methods were:53.8%(14/26), 93.7%(74/79), 83.8%(88/105), 14/19, 86.0%(74/86) for Q?SPECT;73.1%(19/26), 96.2%(76/79), 90.5%(95/105), 86.4%(19/22), 91.6%(76/83) for CTPA;76.9%(20/26), 93.7%(74/79), 89.5%(94/105), 80.0%(20/25), 92.5%(74/80)for Q?SPECT/CT;88.5%(23/26), 91.1%(72/79), 90.5%(95/105), 76.7%(23/30), 96.0%(72/75) for Q?SPECT/CTPA. (3) McNemar test showed Q?SPECT/CT and Q?SPECT/CTPA had higher diagnostic Se for the detection of PE than Q?SPECT (χ2=4.167, 7.111, both P<0.05) , but without any significant difference with CTPA in diagnostic efficiency (χ2=0-2.250, all P>0.05) . Q?SPECT/CT had higher diagnostic Ac than Q?SPECT (χ2=4.167, P<0.05) . There was no significant difference between Q?SPECT/CT and Q?SPECT/CTPA in diagnostic effi?ciency (χ2=0.001-1.333, all P>0.05). (4)Kappa values of 4 imaging methods for radiologist 1 and 2 were 0.902, 0.915, 0.973, and 0.884. Conclusions Q?SPECT/CT imaging provides good Se and Sp. The diag?nostic efficiency of Q?SPECT/CT is better than that of Q?SPECT and is corresponded roughly to the efficien?cy of CTPA, Q?SPECT/CTPA. The diagnosis of two radiologists on Q?SPECT/CT images has the best con?sistency.
