Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27743294›Full record

ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2016

"Same-Patient Processing" for multiple cardiac SPECT studies. 1. Improving LV segmentation accuracy.

Guido Germano, Paul B Kavanagh, Mathews B Fish, Mark H Lemley, Yuan Xu, Daniel S Berman, Piotr J Slomka

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Quantitative measurements of myocardial perfusion and function from SPECT (and PET) studies depend on the method used to perform those measurements.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2018
    Article
  4. New Trends in Quantitative Nuclear Cardiology Methods.Current cardiovascular imaging reports · 2018
    Article
  5. Novel SPECT Technologies and Approaches in Cardiac Imaging.Cardiovascular innovations and applications · 2016
    Article
  6. Serial cardiac SPECT studies: Technical issues and clinical implications.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2016
    Article
  7. "Same-patient processing" for multiple cardiac SPECT studies. 2. Improving quantification repeatability.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2016
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Guido GermanoDepartment of Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Guido.Germano@cshs.org.
Paul B KavanaghDepartment of Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Mathews B FishOregon Heart and Vascular Institute, Sacred Heart Medical Center, Springfield, OR, USA.
Mark H LemleyOregon Heart and Vascular Institute, Sacred Heart Medical Center, Springfield, OR, USA.
Yuan XuDepartment of Imaging, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Daniel S BermanDepartment of Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Piotr J SlomkaDepartment of Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Funding

Quantitative Prediction of Disease and Outcomes from Next Generation SPECT and CTR01HL089765 · NHLBI · CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER · PI SLOMKA, PIOTR J · 2007 to 2021
$6.1M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL089765
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis paper describes a novel approach (same-patient processing, or SPP) aimed at improving left ventricular segmentation accuracy in patients with multiple SPECT studies, and evaluates its performance compared to conventional processing in a large population of 962 patients undergoing rest and stress electrocardiography-gated SPECT MPI, for a total of 5,772 image datasets (6 per patient).

methodsEach dataset was independently processed using a standard algorithm, and a shape quality control score (SQC) was produced for every segmentation. Datasets with a SQC score higher than a specific threshold, suggesting algorithmic failure, were automatically reprocessed with the SPP-modified algorithm, which incorporates knowledge of the segmentation mask location in the other datasets belonging to the same patient. Experienced operators blinded as to whether datasets had been processed based on the standard or SPP approach assessed segmentation success/failure for each dataset.

resultsThe SPP approach reduced segmentation failures from 219/5772 (3.8%) to 42/5772 (0.7%) overall, with particular improvements in attenuation corrected (AC) datasets with high extra-cardiac activity (from 100/962 (10.4%) to 12/962 (1.4%) for rest AC, and from 41/962 (4.3%) to 9/962 (0.9%) for stress AC). The number of patients who had at least one of their 6 datasets affected by segmentation failure decreased from 141/962 (14.7%) to 14/962 (1.7%) using the SPP approach.

conclusionWhenever multiple image datasets for the same patient exist and need to be processed, it is possible to deal with the images as a group rather than individually. The same-patient processing approach can be implemented automatically, and may substantially reduce the need for manual reprocessing due to cardiac segmentation failure.

Indexed as

Cardiac-Gated Single-Photon Emission Computer-Assisted TomographyCoronary Artery DiseaseFemaleHeart VentriclesHumansImage EnhancementMaleMiddle AgedMyocardial Perfusion ImagingReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityStroke VolumeTomography, Emission-Computed, Single-PhotonVentricular Dysfunction, Leftgated SPECTimage processingMyocardial perfusion imaging: SPECTsoftware and algorithms

Identifiers

PMID27743294
PMCPMC5453297

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.