Comparison of (18)F SPECT with PET in myocardial imaging: A realistic thorax-cardiac phantom study

BACKGROUND: Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging with fluorine-18 ((18)F) Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) and flow tracer such as Rubidium-82 ((82)Rb) is an established method for evaluating an ischemic but viable myocardium. However, the high cost of PET imaging restricts its wider clinical use. Therefore, less expensive (18)F FDG single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging has been considered as an alternative to (18)F FDG PET imaging. The purpose of the work is to compare SPECT with PET in myocardial perfusion/viability imaging. METHODS: A nonuniform RH-2 thorax-heart phantom was used in the SPECT and PET acquisitions. Three inserts, 3 cm, 2 cm and 1 cm in diameter, were placed in the left ventricular (LV) wall to simulate infarcts. The phantom acquisition was performed sequentially with 7.4 MBq of (18)F and 22.2 MBq of Technetium-99m ((99m)Tc) in the SPECT study and with 7.4 MBq of (18)F and 370 MBq of (82)Rb in the PET study. SPECT and PET data were processed using standard reconstruction software provided by vendors. Circumferential profiles of the short-axis slices, the contrast and viability of the inserts were used to evaluate the SPECT and PET images. RESULTS: The contrast for 3 cm, 2 cm and 1 cm inserts were for (18)F PET data, 1.0 ± 0.01, 0.67 ± 0.02 and 0.25 ± 0.01, respectively. For (82)Rb PET data, the corresponding contrast values were 0.61 ± 0.02, 0.37 ± 0.02 and 0.19 ± 0.01, respectively. For (18)F SPECT the contrast values were, 0.31 ± 0.03 and 0.20 ± 0.05 for 3 cm and 2 cm inserts, respectively. For (99m)Tc SPECT the contrast values were, 0.63 ± 0.04 and 0.24 ± 0.05 for 3 cm and 2 cm inserts respectively. In SPECT, the 1 cm insert was not detectable. In the SPECT study, all three inserts were falsely diagnosed as "viable", while in the PET study, only the 1 cm insert was diagnosed falsely "viable". CONCLUSION: For smaller defects the (99m)Tc/(18)F SPECT imaging cannot entirely replace the more expensive (82)Rb/(18)F PET for myocardial perfusion/viability imaging, due to poorer image spatial resolution and poorer defect contrast