Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
EJNMMI Research
Published in: EJNMMI Research 1/2012

Open Access 01-12-2012 | Original research

Effects of rigid and non-rigid image registration on test-retest variability of quantitative [18F]FDG PET/CT studies

Authors: Floris HP van Velden, Paul van Beers, Johan Nuyts, Linda M Velasquez, Wendy Hayes, Adriaan A Lammertsma, Ronald Boellaard, Dirk Loeckx

Published in: EJNMMI Research | Issue 1/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose ([18F]FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) is a valuable tool for monitoring response to therapy in oncology. In longitudinal studies, however, patients are not scanned in exactly the same position. Rigid and non-rigid image registration can be applied in order to reuse baseline volumes of interest (VOI) on consecutive studies of the same patient. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of various image registration strategies on standardized uptake value (SUV) and metabolic volume test-retest variability (TRT).

Methods

Test-retest whole-body [18F]FDG PET/CT scans were collected retrospectively for 11 subjects with advanced gastrointestinal malignancies (colorectal carcinoma). Rigid and non-rigid image registration techniques with various degrees of locality were applied to PET, CT, and non-attenuation corrected PET (NAC) data. VOI were drawn independently on both test and retest scans. VOI drawn on test scans were projected onto retest scans and the overlap between projected VOI and manually drawn retest VOI was quantified using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC). In addition, absolute (unsigned) differences in TRT of SUVmax, SUVmean, metabolic volume and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) were calculated in on one hand the test VOI and on the other hand the retest VOI and projected VOI. Reference values were obtained by delineating VOIs on both scans separately.

Results

Non-rigid PET registration showed the best performance (median DSC: 0.82, other methods: 0.71-0.81). Compared with the reference, none of the registration types showed significant absolute differences in TRT of SUVmax, SUVmean and TLG (p > 0.05). Only for absolute TRT of metabolic volume, significant lower values (p < 0.05) were observed for all registration strategies when compared to delineating VOIs separately, except for non-rigid PET registrations (p = 0.1). Non-rigid PET registration provided good volume TRT (7.7%) that was smaller than the reference (16%).

Conclusion

In particular, non-rigid PET image registration showed good performance similar to delineating VOI on both scans separately, and with smaller TRT in metabolic volume estimates.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Stroobants SG, D'Hoore I, Dooms C, De Leyn PR, Dupont PJ, De Wever W, De Groot T, Verschakelen JA, Mortelmans LA, Vansteenkiste JF: Additional value of whole-body fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the detection of distant metastases of non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Lung Cancer 2003, 4: 242–247. 10.3816/CLC.2003.n.005PubMedCrossRef
2.
Nestle U, Kremp S, Grosu AL: Practical integration of [18F]-FDG-PET and PET-CT in the planning of radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): the technical basis, ICRU-target volumes, problems, perspectives. Radiother Oncol 2006, 81: 209–225. 10.1016/j.radonc.2006.09.011PubMedCrossRef
3.
van Velden FHP, Cheebsumon P, Yaqub M, Smit EF, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA, Boellaard R: Evaluation of a cumulative SUV-volume histogram method for parameterizing heterogeneous intratumoural FDG uptake in non-small cell lung cancer PET studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011, 38: 1636–1647. 10.1007/s00259-011-1845-6PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
4.
De Moor K, Nuyts J, Plessers L, Stroobants S, Maes F, Dupont P: Non-rigid registration with position dependent rigidity for whole body PET follow-up studies. IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record 2006, 3502–3506.
5.
Grgic A, Ballek E, Fleckenstein J, Moca N, Kremp S, Schaefer A, Kuhnigk JM, Rube C, Kirsch CM, Hellwig D: Impact of rigid and nonrigid registration on the determination of (18)F-FDG PET-based tumour volume and standardized uptake value in patients with lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011, 38: 856–864. 10.1007/s00259-010-1719-3PubMedCrossRef
6.
Velasquez LM, Boellaard R, Kollia G, Hayes W, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA, Galbraith SM: Repeatability of 18F-FDG PET in a multicenter phase I study of patients with advanced gastrointestinal malignancies. J Nucl Med 2009, 50: 1646–1654. 10.2967/jnumed.109.063347PubMedCrossRef
7.
Boellaard R: Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med 2009,50(Suppl 1):11S-20S.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Boellaard R, O'Doherty MJ, Weber WA, Mottaghy FM, Lonsdale MN, Stroobants SG, Oyen WJ, Kotzerke J, Hoekstra OS, Pruim J, et al.: FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010, 37: 181–200. 10.1007/s00259-009-1297-4PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
9.
Hutton BF, Braun M, Thurfjell L, Lau DY: Image registration: an essential tool for nuclear medicine. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002, 29: 559–577. 10.1007/s00259-001-0700-6PubMedCrossRef
10.
Klein S, Staring M, Murphy K, Viergever MA, Pluim JP: elastix: a toolbox for intensity-based medical image registration. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2010, 29: 196–205.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Loeckx D: Automated nonrigid intra-patient image registration using B-splines. In PhD Thesis. PhD thesis, K.U.Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; 2006.
12.
Klein S, Pluim JP, Staring M, Viergever MA: Adaptive Stochastic Gradient Descent Optimisation for Image Registration. Int J Comput Vision 2009, 81: 227–239. 10.1007/s11263-008-0168-yCrossRef
13.
Frings V, de Langen AJ, Smit EF, van Velden FHP, Hoekstra OS, van Tinteren H, Boellaard R: Repeatability of metabolically active volume measurements with 18F-FDG and 18F-FLT PET in non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med 2010, 51: 1870–1877. 10.2967/jnumed.110.077255PubMedCrossRef
14.
van Elmpt W, Hamill J, Jones J, De Ruysscher D, Lambin P, Ollers M: Optimal gating compared to 3D and 4D PET reconstruction for characterization of lung tumours. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011, 38: 843–855. 10.1007/s00259-010-1716-6PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
15.
Shekhar R, Walimbe V, Raja S, Zagrodsky V, Kanvinde M, Wu G, Bybel B: Automated 3-dimensional elastic registration of whole-body PET and CT from separate or combined scanners. J Nucl Med 2005, 46: 1488–1496.PubMed
16.
Grgic A, Nestle U, Schaefer-Schuler A, Kremp S, Ballek E, Fleckenstein J, Rube C, Kirsch CM, Hellwig D: Nonrigid versus rigid registration of thoracic 18F-FDG PET and CT in patients with lung cancer: an intraindividual comparison of different breathing maneuvers. J Nucl Med 2009, 50: 1921–1926. 10.2967/jnumed.109.065649PubMedCrossRef
17.
van Herk M, Gilhuijs KG, de Munck J, Touw A: Effect of image artifacts, organ motion, and poor segmentation on the reliability and accuracy of three-dimensional chamfer matching. Comput Aided Surg 1997, 2: 346–355. 10.3109/10929089709149835PubMedCrossRef
18.
Shankar LK, Van den Abbeele A, Yap J, Benjamin R, Scheutze S, Fitzgerald TJ: Considerations for the use of imaging tools for phase II treatment trials in oncology. Clin Cancer Res 2009, 15: 1891–1897. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-2030PubMedCrossRef
19.
Roels S, Slagmolen P, Nuyts J, Lee JA, Loeckx D, Maes F, Vandecaveye V, Stroobants S, Ectors N, Penninckx F, et al.: Biological image-guided radiotherapy in rectal cancer: challenges and pitfalls. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 75: 782–790. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.11.031PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Effects of rigid and non-rigid image registration on test-retest variability of quantitative [18F]FDG PET/CT studies
Authors
Floris HP van Velden
Paul van Beers
Johan Nuyts
Linda M Velasquez
Wendy Hayes
Adriaan A Lammertsma
Ronald Boellaard
Dirk Loeckx
Publication date
01-12-2012
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
EJNMMI Research / Issue 1/2012
Electronic ISSN: 2191-219X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/2191-219X-2-10

Other articles of this Issue 1/2012

EJNMMI Research 1/2012 Go to the issue

Original research

Cerebral blood flow and glucose metabolism in healthy volunteers measured using a high-resolution PET scanner

Original research

Comparative study of 64Cu/NOTA-[D-Tyr6,βAla11,Thi13,Nle14]BBN(6-14) monomer and dimers for prostate cancer PET imaging

Original research

Quantitative hormone therapy follow-up in an ER+/ERαKD mouse tumor model using FDG and [11C]-methionine PET imaging

Preliminary research

High resolution tumor targeting in living mice by means of multispectral optoacoustic tomography

Original research

[111In-DOTA]Somatostatin-14 analogs as potential pansomatostatin-like radiotracers - first results of a preclinical study

Original research

Co-registration of glucose metabolism with positron emission tomography and vascularity with fluorescent diffuse optical tomography in mouse tumors