Cargando…

Combination of compressed sensing-based iterative reconstruction and offset acquisition for I-123 FP-CIT SPECT: a simulation study

OBJECTIVE(S): The purpose of this study was to validate undersampled single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging using a combination of compressed sensing (CS) iterative reconstruction (CS-IR) and offset acquisition. METHODS: Three types of numerical phantoms were used to evaluate ima...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Matsutomo, Norikazu, Hashimoto, Takeyuki, Fukami, Mitsuha, Yamamoto, Tomoaki
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Mashhad University of Medical Sciences 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9205842/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35800416
http://dx.doi.org/10.22038/AOJNMB.2021.59585.1417
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE(S): The purpose of this study was to validate undersampled single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging using a combination of compressed sensing (CS) iterative reconstruction (CS-IR) and offset acquisition. METHODS: Three types of numerical phantoms were used to evaluate image quality and quantification derived from CS with offset acquisition. SPECT images were reconstructed using filtered back-projection (FBP), maximum likelihood-expectation maximization (ML-EM), CS-IR, and CS-IR with offset acquisition. The efficacy of CS-IR with offset acquisition was examined in terms of spatial resolution, aspect ratio (ASR), activity concentration linearity, contrast, percent coefficient of variation (%CV), and specific binding ratio (SBR). RESULTS: The full widths at half maximum remained unchanged as the number of projections decreased in CS-IR with offset acquisition. Changes in ASRs and linearities of count density were observed for ML-EM and CS-IR from undersampled projections. The %CV obtained by CS-IR with offset acquisition was substantially lower than that obtained by ML-EM and CS-IR. There were no significant differences between the %CVs obtained from 60 projections by CS-IR with offset acquisition and from 120 projections by FBP. Although the SBRs for CS-IR with offset acquisition tended to be slightly lower than for FBP, the SBRs for CS-IR with offset acquisition did not change with the number of projections. CONCLUSIONS: CS-IR with offset acquisition can provide good image quality and quantification compared with a commonly used SPECT reconstruction method, especially from undersampled projection data. Our proposed method could shorten overall SPECT acquisition times, which would benefit patients and enable quantification with dynamic SPECT acquisitions.