Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
SPECT imaging with123I-FP-CIT is used for diagnosis of neurodegenerative disorders like Parkinson's disease. Attenuation correction (AC) can be useful for quantitative analysis of123I-FP-CIT SPECT. Ideally, AC would be performed based on attenuation maps (μ-maps) derived from perfectly registered CT scans. Suchμ-maps, however, are most times not available and possible errors in image registration can induce quantitative inaccuracies in AC corrected SPECT images. Earlier, we showed that a convolutional neural network (CNN) based approach allows to estimate SPECT-alignedμ-maps for full brain perfusion imaging using only emission data. Here we investigate the feasibility of similar CNN methods for axially focused123I-FP-CIT scans. We tested our approach on a high-resolution multi-pinhole prototype clinical SPECT system in a Monte Carlo simulation study. Three CNNs that estimateμ-maps in a voxel-wise, patch-wise and image-wise manner were investigated. As the added value of AC on clinical123I-FP-CIT scans is still debatable, the impact of AC was also reported to check in which cases CNN based AC could be beneficial. AC using the ground truthμ-maps (GT-AC) and CNN estimatedμ-maps (CNN-AC) were compared with the case when no AC was done (No-AC). Results show that the effect of using GT-AC versus CNN-AC or No-AC on striatal shape and symmetry is minimal. Specific binding ratios (SBRs) from localized regions show a deviation from GT-AC≤2.5% for all three CNN-ACs while No-AC systematically underestimates SBRs by 13.1%. A strong correlation (r≥0.99) was obtained between GT-AC based SBRs and SBRs from CNN-ACs and No-AC. Absolute quantification (in kBq ml-1) shows a deviation from GT-AC within 2.2% for all three CNN-ACs and of 71.7% for No-AC. To conclude, all three CNNs show comparable performance in accurateμ-map estimation and123I-FP-CIT quantification. CNN-estimatedμ-map can be a promising substitute for CT-basedμ-map.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.