Comparison of four motion correction techniques in SPECT imaging of the heart: a cardiac phantom study.

UNLABELLED

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of four different motion correction techniques in SPECT imaging of the heart.

METHODS

We evaluated three automated techniques: the cross-correlation (CC) method, diverging squares (DS) method and two-dimensional fit method and one manual shift technique (MS) using a cardiac phantom. The phantom was filled with organ concentrations of 99mTc closely matching those seen in patient studies. The phantom was placed on a small sliding platform connected to a computer-controlled stepping motor. Linear, random, sinusoidal and bounce motions of magnitude up to 2 cm in the axial direction were simulated. Both single- and dual-detector 90 degrees acquisitions were acquired using a dual 90 degrees detector system. Data were acquired over 180 degrees with 30 or 15 frames/detector (single-/dual-head) at 30 sec/frame in a 64x64 matrix.

RESULTS

The simulated single-detector system, CC method, failed to accurately correct for any of the simulated motions. The DS technique overestimated the magnitude of phantom motion, particularly for images acquired between 45 degrees left anterior oblique and 45 degrees left posterior oblique. The two-dimensional and MS techniques accurately corrected for motion. The simulated dual 90 degrees detector system, CC method, only partially tracked random or bounce cardiac motion and failed to detect sinusoidal motion. The DS technique overestimated motion in the latter half of the study. Both the two-dimensional and MS techniques provided superior tracking, although no technique was able to accurately track the rapid changes in cardiac location simulated in the random motion study. Average absolute differences between true and calculated position of the heart on single- and dual 90 degrees -detectors were 1.7 mm and 1.5 mm for the two-dimensional and MS techniques, respectively. The corresponding values for the DS and CC techniques were 5.7 and 8.9 mm, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Of the four techniques evaluated, manual correction by an experienced technologist proved to be the most accurate, although results were not significantly different from those observed with the two-dimensional method. Both techniques accurately determined cardiac location and permitted artifact-free reconstruction of the simulated cardiac studies.