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

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 update 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 update 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 update and 13.2 mm FWHM produced significantly higher value than that derived from 90-120 OSEM update 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 update 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.