Comparison of post reconstruction- and reconstruction-based deep learning denoising methods in cardiac SPECT.

Abstract

Objective. The quality of myocardial perfusion SPECT (MPS) images is often hampered by low count statistics. Poor image quality might hinder reporting the studies and in the worst case lead to erroneous diagnosis. Deep learning (DL)-based methods can be used to improve the quality of the low count studies. DL can be applied in several different methods, which might affect the outcome. The aim of this study was to investigate the differences between post reconstruction- and reconstruction-based denoising methods.Approach. A UNET-type network was trained using ordered subsets expectation maximization (OSEM) reconstructed MPS studies acquired with half, quarter and eighth of full-activity. The trained network was applied as a post reconstruction denoiser (OSEM+DL) and it was incorporated into a regularized reconstruction algorithm as a deep learning penalty (DLP). OSEM+DL and DLP were compared against each other and against OSEM images without DL denoising in terms of noise level, myocardium-ventricle contrast and defect detection performance with signal-to-noise ratio of a non-prewhitening matched filter (NPWMF-SNR) applied to artificial perfusion defects inserted into defect-free clinical MPS scans. Comparisons were made using half-, quarter- and eighth-activity data.Main results. OSEM+DL provided lower noise level at all activities than other methods. DLP's noise level was also always lower than matching activity OSEM's. In addition, OSEM+DL and DLP outperformed OSEM in defect detection performance, but contrary to noise level ranking DLP had higher NPWMF-SNR overall than OSEM+DL. The myocardium-ventricle contrast was highest with DLP and lowest with OSEM+DL. Both OSEM+DL and DLP offered better image quality than OSEM, but visually perfusion defects were deeper in OSEM images at low activities.Significance. Both post reconstruction- and reconstruction-based DL denoising methods have great potential for MPS. The preference between these methods is a trade-off between smoother images and better defect detection performance.