4.7 Article

EANM procedural guidelines for PET/CT quantitative myocardial perfusion imaging

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00259-020-05046-9

Keywords

PET; Myocardial blood flow; Myocardial flow reserve; Quantitative imaging

Funding

  1. Universita degli Studi di Firenze within the CRUI-CARE Agreement

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The use of cardiac PET, especially quantitative myocardial perfusion PET, has been growing due to the availability of scanners and demonstrated advantages. The need for procedural modalities for high-quality studies and maximizing the benefits of this technique is emphasized. Despite rapid advancements in hardware and software, the EANM Cardiovascular Committee sees the importance of updating the state of the art to effectively implement and promote quantitative myocardial perfusion PET.
The use of cardiac PET, and in particular of quantitative myocardial perfusion PET, has been growing during the last years, because scanners are becoming widely available and because several studies have convincingly demonstrated the advantages of this imaging approach. Therefore, there is a need of determining the procedural modalities for performing high-quality studies and obtaining from this demanding technique the most in terms of both measurement reliability and clinical data. Although the field is rapidly evolving, with progresses in hardware and software, and the near perspective of new tracers, the EANM Cardiovascular Committee found it reasonable and useful to expose in an updated text the state of the art of quantitative myocardial perfusion PET, in order to establish an effective use of this modality and to help implementing it on a wider basis. Together with the many steps necessary for the correct execution of quantitative measurements, the importance of a multiparametric approach and of a comprehensive and clinically useful report have been stressed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available