Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Optimization of iterative reconstruction parameters with attenuation correction, scatter correction and resolution recovery in myocardial perfusion SPECT/CT

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Nuclear Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to characterize the optimal reconstruction parameters for ordered-subset expectation maximization (OSEM) with attenuation correction, scatter correction, and depth-dependent resolution recovery (OSEMACSCRR). We assessed the optimal parameters for OSEMACSCRR in an anthropomorphic torso phantom study, and evaluated the validity of the reconstruction parameters in the groups of normal volunteers and patients with abnormal perfusion.

Methods

Images of the anthropomorphic torso phantom, 9 normal volunteers and 7 patients undergoing myocardial perfusion SPECT were acquired with a SPECT/CT scanner. SPECT data comprised a 64 × 64 matrix with an acquisition pixel size of 6.6 mm. A normalized mean square error (NMSE) of the phantom image was calculated to determine both optimal OSEM update and a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of Gaussian filter. We validated the myocardial count, contrast and noise characteristic for clinical subjects derived from OSEMACSCRR processing. OSEM with depth-dependent resolution recovery (OSEMRR) and filtered back projection (FBP) were simultaneously performed to compare OSEMACSCRR.

Results

The combination of OSEMACSCRR with 90–120 OSEM updates and Gaussian filter with 13.2–14.85 mm FWHM yielded low NMSE value in the phantom study. When we used OSEMACSCRR with 120 updates and Gaussian filter with 13.2 mm FWHM in the normal volunteers, myocardial contrast showed significantly higher value than that derived from 120 updates and 14.85 mm FWHM. OSEMACSCRR with the combination of 90–120 OSEM updates and 14.85 mm FWHM produced lowest % root mean square (RMS) noise. Regarding the defect contrast of patients with abnormal perfusion, OSEMACSCRR with the combination of 90–120 OSEM updates and 13.2 mm FWHM produced significantly higher value than that derived from 90–120 OSEM updates and 14.85 mm FWHM. OSEMACSCRR was superior to FBP for the % RMS noise (8.52 ± 1.08 vs. 9.55 ± 1.71, p = 0.02) and defect contrast (0.368 ± 0.061 vs. 0.327 ± 0.052, p = 0.01), respectively.

Conclusions

Clinically optimized the number of OSEM updates and FWHM of Gaussian filter were (1) 120 updates and 13.2 mm, and (2) 90–120 updates and 14.85 mm on the OSEMACSCRR processing, respectively. Further assessment may be required to determine the optimal iterative reconstruction parameters in a larger patient population.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Shepp LA, Vardi Y. Maximum likelihood reconstruction for emission tomography. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1982;1:113–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hudson HM, Larkin RS. Accelerated image reconstruction using ordered subsets of projection data. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1994;13:601–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hesse B, Tagil K, Cuocolo A, Anagnostopoulos C, Bardies M, Bax J, et al. EANM/ESC procedural guidelines for myocardial perfusion imaging in nuclear cardiology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32:855–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hesse B, Lindhardt TB, Acampa W, Anagnostopoulos C, Ballinger J, Bax JJ, et al. EANM/ESC guidelines for radionuclide imaging of cardiac function. Eur J Nucl Med Mol I. 2008;35:851–85.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Slomka PJ, Patton JA, Berman DS, Germano G. Advances in technical aspects of myocardial perfusion SPECT imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2009;16:255–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Zaman MU, Hashmi I, Fatima N. Recent developments and future prospects of SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging. Ann Nucl Med. 2010;24:565–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zeintl J, Vija AH, Yahil A, Hornegger J, Kuwert T. Quantitative accuracy of clinical 99mTc SPECT/CT using ordered-subset expectation maximization with 3-dimensional resolution recovery, attenuation, and scatter correction. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:921–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ficaro EP, Kritzman JN, Corbett JR. Effect of reconstruction parameters and acquisition times on myocardial perfusion distribution in normals. J Nucl Cardiol. 2008;15:S20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ceriani L, Ruberto T, Delaloye AB, Prior JO, Giovanella L. Three-dimensional ordered-subset expectation maximization iterative protocol for evaluation of left ventricular volumes and function by quantitative gated SPECT: a dynamic phantom study. J Nucl Med Technol. 2010;38:18–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bateman TM, Heller GV, McGhie AI, Courter SA, Golub RA, Case JA, et al. Multicenter investigation comparing a highly efficient half-time stress-only attenuation correction approach against standard rest-stress Tc-99m SPECT imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2009;16:726–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Venero CV, Heller GV, Bateman TM, McGhie AI, Ahlberg AW, Katten D, et al. A multicenter evaluation of a new post-processing method with depth-dependent collimator resolution applied to full-time and half-time acquisitions without and with simultaneously acquired attenuation correction. J Nucl Cardiol. 2009;16:714–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tashiro K, Tomiguchi S, Shiraishi S, Yoshida M, Sakaguchi F, Yamashita Y. Clinical usefulness of a collimator distance dependent resolution recovery in myocardial perfusion SPECT: a clinical report from a single institute. Ann Nucl Med. 2011;25:133–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. DePuey EG, Bommireddipalli S, Clark J, Leykekhman A, Thompson LB, Friedman M. A comparison of the image quality of full-time myocardial perfusion SPECT vs wide beam reconstruction half-time and half-dose SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol. 2011;18:273–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Borges-Neto S, Pagnanelli RA, Shaw LK, Honeycutt E, Shwartz SC, Adams GL, et al. Clinical results of a novel wide beam reconstruction method for shortening scan time of Tc-99m cardiac SPECT perfusion studies. J Nucl Cardiol. 2007;14:555–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Valenta I, Treyer V, Husmann L, Gaemperli O, Schindler MJ, Herzog BA, et al. New reconstruction algorithm allows shortened acquisition time for myocardial perfusion SPECT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:750–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. DePuey EG, Gadiraju R, Clark J, Thompson L, Anstett F, Shwartz SC. Ordered subset expectation maximization and wide beam reconstruction “half-time” gated myocardial perfusion SPECT functional imaging: a comparison to “full-time” filtered backprojection. J Nucl Cardiol. 2008;15:547–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Penney BC, King MA, Schwinger RB, Baker SP, Stritzke P, Doherty PW. Constrained least-squares restoration of nuclear medicine images: selecting the coarseness function. Med Phys. 1987;14:849–58.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Onishi H, Motomura N, Fujino K, Natsume T, Haramoto Y. Quantitative performance of advanced resolution recovery strategies on SPECT images: evaluation with use of digital phantom models. Radiol Phys Technol. 2013;6:42–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Blocklet D, Seret A, Popa N, Schoutens A. Maximum-likelihood reconstruction with ordered subsets in bone SPECT. J Nucl Med. 1999;40:1978–84.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Case JA, Licho R, King MA, Weaver JP. Bone SPECT of the spine: a comparison of attenuation correction techniques. J Nucl Med. 1999;40:604–13.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wells RG, King MA, Simkin PH, Judy PF, Brill AB, Gifford HC, et al. Comparing filtered backprojection and ordered-subsets expectation maximization for small-lesion detection and localization in 67 Ga SPECT. J Nucl Med. 2000;41:1391–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Takahashi Y, Murase K, Higashino H, Sogabe I, Sakamoto K. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis of images reconstructed with iterative expectation maximization algorithms. Ann Nucl Med. 2001;15:521–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Pretorius PH, King MA, Gifford HC, Dahlberg ST, Spencer F, Simon E, et al. Myocardial perfusion SPECT reconstruction: receiver operating characteristic comparison of CAD detection accuracy of filtered backprojection reconstruction with all of the clinical imaging information available to readers and solely stress slices iteratively reconstructed with combined compensation. J Nucl Cardiol. 2005;12:284–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Narayanan MV, King MA, Pretorius PH, Dahlberg ST, Spencer F, Simon E, et al. Human-observer receiver-operating-characteristic evaluation of attenuation, scatter, and resolution compensation strategies for (99m)Tc myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:1725–34.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank nuclear medicine technologists: Minoru Tobisaka, Prof. Masahisa Onoguchi, Shigeto Matsuyama, Hiroto Yoneyama, Masakazu Kobayashi, Hironori Kojima, Takahiro Konishi, Keita Sakuta, Haruka Koshida (Kanazawa University Hospital, Kanazawa, Japan) for their assistance. We also thank Carole Fujioka, DVM for the grammatical revision. This work was supported in part by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 22591320 and Grant for Promoted Research from Kanazawa Medical University (S2013-16).

Conflict of interest

Authors declare no conflict of interest in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physics, Kanazawa Medical University, 1-1 Daigaku, Uchinada, Kahoku, Ishikawa, 920-0293, Japan

    Koichi Okuda & Mitsumasa Hashimoto

  2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Kanazawa University Hospital, 13-1 Takara-machi, Kanazawa, 920-8641, Japan

    Kenichi Nakajima, Hiroshi Wakabayashi, Shinro Matsuo, Junichi Taki & Seigo Kinuya

  3. Kanazawa Advanced Medical Center, 13-1 Takara-machi, Kanazawa, 920-8641, Japan

    Masato Yamada

  4. Department of Radiology, Toyohashi Municipal Hospital, 50 Hachiken Nishi, Aotake, Toyohashi, Aichi, 441-8570, Japan

    Hajime Ichikawa

  5. Siemens Japan, 1-11-1 Osaki, Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo, 141-8603, Japan

    Hiroyuki Arai

Authors
  1. Koichi Okuda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kenichi Nakajima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Masato Yamada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hiroshi Wakabayashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hajime Ichikawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hiroyuki Arai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Shinro Matsuo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Junichi Taki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Mitsumasa Hashimoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Seigo Kinuya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Koichi Okuda or Kenichi Nakajima.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Okuda, K., Nakajima, K., Yamada, M. et al. Optimization of iterative reconstruction parameters with attenuation correction, scatter correction and resolution recovery in myocardial perfusion SPECT/CT. Ann Nucl Med 28, 60–68 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-013-0785-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-013-0785-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation