Total for the last 12 months
number of access : ?
number of downloads : ?
ID 117912
Matsuda, Noritake Tokushima University
Azane, Shota Tokushima University
Kunikane, Yamato Tokushima University
Ueki, Yuya Tokushima University
Kubota, Masahiro Tokushima Red Cross Hospital
Amano, Masafumi Tokushima University
Cardiac amyloidosis (CA)
Standardized uptake value (SUV)
Amyloid deposition volume (AmyDV)
Total amyloid uptake (TAU)
Becquerel calibration factor (BCF)
Content Type
Journal Article
Purpose: Amyloid light chain (AL) and transthyretin (ATTR) are the major subtypes of cardiac amyloidosis (CA). 99mTc-pyrophosphate (PYP) scintigraphy is used to differentiate ATTR from other CA subtypes. We adapted the standardized uptake value (SUV) for 99mTc-PYP and proposed two quantitative indices, amyloid deposition volume (AmyDV) and total amyloid uptake (TAU). This study aimed to evaluate the utility of these quantitative indices in differentiating ATTR from non-ATTRs.
Materials and methods: Before the SUV measurement, the Becquerel calibration factor (BCF) of 99mTc was obtained by a phantom experiment. Thirty-two patients who had undergone hybrid SPECT/CT imaging 3 h after injection of 99mTc-PYP (370 MBq) were studied. CT attenuation correction for image reconstruction was applied in all. We calculated SUV, AmyDV, and TAU using a quantitative analysis software program for bone SPECT (GI-BONE) and analyzed AmyDV using two methods: Threshold method (set 40%); and constant value method (average SUVmax of ribs). We assessed the diagnostic ability of heart-to-contralateral lung (H/CL) ratio, SUV, AmyDV, and TAU to differentiate ATTR from non-ATTR using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.
Results: Statistically significant differences in all quantitative indices were observed between ATTR and non-ATTR. The area under the curve of each quantitative index for discriminating between ATTR and non-ATTR were as follows: H/CL, 0.997; SUVmax, 0.953; SUVmean (M1), 0.964; SUVmean (M2), 0.969; AmyDV (M1), 0.875; AmyDV (M2), 0.974; and TAU, 0.974. The AmyDV (M2) had higher diagnostic ability than AmyDV (M1). Thus, TAU was calculated as AmyDV (M2) × SUVmean (M2). In the ROC curve, SUV, AmyDV, and TAU had almost the same diagnostic ability as H/CL in distinguishing ATTR from non-ATTRs.
Conclusions: We propose two novel 3D-based quantitative parameters (AmyDV and TAU) that have almost equal ability to discriminate ATTR from non-ATTR.
Journal Title
Japanese Journal of Radiology
Japan Radiological Society|Springer Nature
Published Date
This version of the article has been accepted for publication, after peer review (when applicable) and is subject to Springer Nature’s AM terms of use (, but is not the Version of Record and does not reflect post-acceptance improvements, or any corrections. The Version of Record is available online at:
DOI (Published Version)
URL ( Publisher's Version )
Medical Sciences
Advance Radiation Research, Education, and Management Center
University Hospital