Comparison of fully automated computer analysis and visual scoring for detection of coronary artery disease from myocardial perfusion SPECT in a large population

Abstract

We compared the performance of fully automated quantification of attenuation-corrected (AC) and noncorrected (NC) myocardial perfusion SPECT (MPS) with the corresponding performance of experienced readers for detection of coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods: Rest-stress 99mTc-sestamibi MPS studies (n = 995; 650 consecutive cases with coronary angiography and 345 with likelihood of CAD < 5%) were obtained by MPS with AC. The total perfusion deficit (TPD) for AC and NC data was compared with the visual summed stress and rest scores of 2 experienced readers. Visual reads were performed in 4 consecutive steps with the following information progressively revealed: NC data, AC 1 NC data, computer results, and all clinical information. Results: The diagnostic accuracy of TPD for detection of CAD was similar to both readers (NC: 82% vs. 84%; AC: 86% vs. 85%-87%; P = not significant) with the exception of the second reader when clinical information was used (89%, P < 0.05). The receiver-operating-characteristic area under the curve (ROC AUC) for TPD was significantly better than visual reads for NC (0.91 vs. 0.87 and 0.89, P < 0.01) and AC (0.92 vs. 0.90, P < 0.01), and it was comparable to visual reads incorporating all clinical information. The per-vessel accuracy of TPD was superior to one reader for NC (81% vs. 77%, P < 0.05) and AC (83% vs. 78%, P < 0.05) and equivalent to the second reader (NC, 79%; and AC, 81%). The per-vessel ROC AUC for NC (0.83) and AC (0.84) for TPD was better than that for the first reader (0.78-0.80, P < 0.01) and comparable to that of the second reader (0.82-0.84, P = not significant) for all steps. Conclusion: For detection of ≥70% stenoses based on angiographic criteria, a fully automated computer analysis of NC and AC MPS data is equivalent for per-patient and can be superior for per-vessel analysis, when compared with expert analysis. Copyright © 2013 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Inc.