Table 1.

Strengths and limitations of different imaging modalities for diagnosis and monitoring of cardiotoxicity

Imaging modality	Volume/function assessment	Tissue/mass characterisation	Myocarditis/inflammation	Valve disease	Pericardial disease	Coronary disease/ischaemia	Radiation exposure	Reproducibility/accuracy	Cost	Availability
2D echo	+	+	0	+++	++	0	None	+	+	+++
3D echo	++	++	0	+++	+	0	None	++	+	++
Stress echo	++	0	0	++	+	+++	None	++	++	++
CMR	+++ (*)	+++ (*)	+++	++	+++	+++	None	+++	+++	++
PET	++	++	+++	0	++	+++	+++	+++	+++	+
Nuclear	++	+	+	0	++	++	+++	++	+	++
CTCA	+	+	0	+	++	+++**	+/++	+++	++	++

2D echo, 2-dimensional echocardiography; 3D echo, 3-dimensional echocardiography; Stress echo, stress echocardiography; CMR, cardiac magnetic resonance; PET, positron emission tomography; Nuclear (includes SPECT, MUGA); CTCA, computed tomography coronary angiogram. +++, excellent diagnostic accuracy or features/ high cost; ++, intermediate diagnostic accuracy or features/ intermediate cost; +, reasonable diagnostic accuracy or features/low cost; 0, unable to diagnose. *Established gold standard. **CTCA is the only non-invasive test that provides anatomical information with regards to presence of coronary disease. All other modalities rely on functional assessment