Metabolically active volumes automatic delineation methodologies in PET imaging: Review and perspectives;Méthodologies de définition automatique des volumes métaboliquement actifs en TEP: Évaluation et perspectives

Cancer/Radiotherapie

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 70-81

  Hatt, M ^a   Boussion, N ^a,b   Cheze Le Rest, C ^a   Visvikis, D ^a   Pradier, O ^a,b  

^a Universite de Bretagne Occidentale   (France)

^b CHU MORVAN   (France)

Author keywords

Contouring; PET; Radiotherapy; Segmentation; Therapy follow up; Validation

Indexed keywords

FOLLOW UP; IMAGE ANALYSIS; INSTRUMENT VALIDATION; METHODOLOGY; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SHORT SURVEY; TUMOR VOLUME;

FUZZY LOGIC; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; RADIOTHERAPY PLANNING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TUMOR BURDEN;

EID: 84857449998     PISSN: 12783218     EISSN: 17696658     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2011.07.243     Document Type: Short Survey

References (73)

1. Jerusalem G., Hustinx R., Beguin Y., Fillet G. The value of positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in disease staging and therapy assessment. Ann Oncol 2002, 13:227-234.
2. Wahl R.L., Jacene H., Kasamon Y., Lodge M.A. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med 2009, 50:122S-150S.
3. Jarritt P.H., Carson K.J., Hounsell A.R., Visvikis D. The role of PET/CT scanning in radiotherapy planning. Br J Radiol 2006, 79:S27-S35.
4. Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med 2009, 50:11S-20S.
5. Lucignani G. SUV and segmentation: pressing challenges in tumour assessment and treatment. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009, 36:715-720.
6. Hatt M., Visvikis D., Albarghach N., Tixier F., Pradier O., Cheze-le Rest C. Prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET image-based parameters in esophageal cancer: impact of tumor delineation methodology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011, 38:1191-1202.
7. Lucignani G., Larson S.M. Doctor, what does my future hold? The prognostic value of FDG-PET in solid tumours. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010, 37:1032-1038.
8. Tixier F., Le Rest C.C., Hatt M., Albarghach N., Pradier O., Metges J.P., et al. Intratumor heterogeneity characterized by textural features on baseline 18F-FDG PET images predicts response to concomitant radiochemotherapy in esophageal cancer. J Nucl Med 2011, 52:369-378.
9. Hatt M., Visvikis D., Pradier O., Cheze-le Rest C. Baseline (18)F-FDG PET image-derived parameters for therapy response prediction in oesophageal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011, 38:1595-1606.
10. Pan T., Mawlawi O. PET/CT in radiation oncology. Med Phys 2008, 35:4955-4966.
11. Sovik A., Malinen E., Olsen D.R. Strategies for biologic image-guided dose escalation: a review. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 73:650-658.
12. Supiot S., Lisbona A., Paris F., Azria D., Fenoglietto P. Dose-painting: mythe or réalité ?. Cancer Radiother 2010, 14:554-562.
13. Fox J.L., Rengan R., O'Meara W., Yorke E., Erdi Y., Nehmeh S., et al. Does registration of PET and planning CT images decrease interobserver and intraobserver variation in delineating tumor volumes for non-small-cell lung cancer?. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005, 62:70-75.
14. van Baardwijk A., Bosmans G., Boersma L., Buijsen J., Wanders S., Hochstenbag M., et al. PET-CT-based auto-contouring in non-small-cell lung cancer correlates with pathology and reduces interobserver variability in the delineation of the primary tumor and involved nodal volumes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007, 68:771-778.
15. Ashamalla H., Rafla S., Parikh K., Mokhtar B., Goswami G., Kambam S., et al. The contribution of integrated PET/CT to the evolving definition of treatment volumes in radiation treatment planning in lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005, 63:1016-1023.
16. Schreurs L.M., Busz D.M., Paardekooper G.M., Beukema J.C., Jager P.L., Van der Jagt E.J., et al. Impact of 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography on computed tomography defined target volumes in radiation treatment planning of esophageal cancer: reduction in geographic misses with equal inter-observer variability: PET/CT improves esophageal target definition. Dis Esophagus 2010, 23:493-501.
17. Gregoire V., Haustermans K., Geets X., Roels S., Lonneux M. PET-based treatment planning in radiotherapy: a new standard?. J Nucl Med 2007, 48:68S-77S.
18. Hatt M., Cheze-Le Rest C., Aboagye E.O., Kenny L.M., Rosso L., Turkheimer F.E., et al. Reproducibility of 18F-FDG and 3'-deoxy-3'-18F-fluorothymidine PET tumor volume measurements. J Nucl Med 2010, 51:1368-1376.
19. Dewalle-Vignion A., Abiad A.E., Betrouni N., Hossein-Foucher C., Huglo D., Vermandel M. Les méthodes de seuillage en TEP: un état de l'art. Med Nucl 2010, 34:119-131.
20. Hatt M., Visvikis D. Defining radiotherapy target volumes using 18F-fluoro-deoxy-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography: still a Pandora's box?: in regard to Devic et al. (Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010, 78:1605.
21. Hatt M., Cheze-Le Rest C., Turzo A., Roux C., Visvikis D. A fuzzy locally adaptive Bayesian segmentation approach for volume determination in PET. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2009, 28:881-893.
22. Hatt M., Cheze-Le Rest C., Albarghach N., Pradier O., Visvikis D. PET functional volume delineation: a robustness and repeatability study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011, 38:663-672.
23. Nestle U., Kremp S., Schaefer-Schuler A., Sebastian-Welsch C., Hellwig D., Rube C., et al. Comparison of different methods for delineation of 18F-FDG PET-positive tissue for target volume definition in radiotherapy of patients with non-Small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med 2005, 46:1342-1348.
24. Biehl K.J., Kong F.M., Dehdashti F., Jin J.Y., Mutic S., El Naqa I., et al. 18F-FDG PET definition of gross tumor volume for radiotherapy of non-small cell lung cancer: is a single standardized uptake value threshold approach appropriate?. J Nucl Med 2006, 47:1808-1812.
25. Ollers M., Bosmans G., van Baardwijk A., Dekker A., Lambin P., Teule J., et al. The integration of PET-CT scans from different hospitals into radiotherapy treatment planning. Radiother Oncol 2008, 87:142-146.
26. Hatt M., Cheze-Le Rest C., Descourt P., Dekker A., De Ruysscher D., Oellers M., et al. Accurate automatic delineation of heterogeneous functional volumes in positron emission tomography for oncology applications. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010, 77:301-308.
27. Tylski P., Bonniaud G., Decenciere E., Stawiaski J., Coulot J., Lefkopoulos D., et al. 18F-FDG PET images segmentation using morphological watershed: a phantom study. IEEE Nucl Sci Sympos Conf 2006, 4:2063-2067.
28. Fogh S, Karancke J, Nelson A, McCue P, Axelrod R,Werner-Wasik W, Pathologic correlation of PET-CT based auto-contouring for radiation planning in lung cancer. 13th World Conference on Lung Cancer Meeting; San Francisco USA, august 2009.
29. Nelson A.D., Brockway K.D., Nelson A.S., Piper J.W. PET Tumor segmentation: validation of a gradient-based method using a NSCLC PET Phantom. J Nucl Med. 2009, 50:1659.
30. Nelson A.D., Werner-Wasik M., Choi W., Arai Y., Faulhaber P.F., Ohri N., et al. PET tumor segmentation: multi-observer validation of a gradient-based method using a NSCLC PET Phantom. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 75:S627.
31. Shen G., Nelson D., Adler L. PET Tumor segmentation: comparison of gradient-based algorithm to constant threshold algorithm. Medical Physics 2007, 34:2395.
32. Geets X., Lee J.A., Bol A., Lonneux M., Grégoire V. A gradient-based method for segmenting FDG-PET images: methodology and validation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007, 34:1427-1438.
33. Li H., Thorstad W.L., Biehl K.J., Laforest R., Su Y., Shoghi K.I., et al. A novel PET tumor delineation method based on adaptive region-growing and dual-front active contours. Med Phys 2008, 35:3711-3721.
34. El Naqa I., Yang D., Apte A., Khullar D., Mutic S., Zheng J., et al. Concurrent multimodality image segmentation by active contours for radiotherapy treatment planning. Med Phys 2007, 34:4738-4749.
35. Dewalle-Vignion A.S., Betrouni N., Lopes R., Huglo D., Stute S., Vermandel M. A New method for volume segmentation of PET images, based on Possibility Theory. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2011, 30:409-423.
36. Belhassen S., Zaidi H. A novel fuzzy C-means algorithm for unsupervised heterogeneous tumor quantification in PET. Med Phys 2010, 37:1309-1324.
37. Pieczynski W. Modèles de Markov en traitement d'images. Traitement Signal 2003, 20:255-278.
38. Day E., Betler J., Parda D., Reitz B., Kirichenko A., Mohammadi S., et al. A region growing method for tumor volume segmentation on PET images for rectal and anal cancer patients. Med Phys 2009, 36:4349-4358.
39. Aristophanous M., Penney B.C., Martel M.K., Pelizzari C.A. A Gaussian mixture model for definition of lung tumor volumes in positron emission tomography. Med Phys 2007, 34:4223-4235.
40. Montgomery D.W., Amira A., Zaidi H. Fully automated segmentation of oncological PET volumes using a combined multiscale and statistical model. Med Phys 2007, 34:722-736.
41. Hatt M., Lamare F., Boussion N., Turzo A., Collet C., Salzenstein F., et al. Fuzzy hidden Markov chains segmentation for volume determination and quantitation in PET. Phys Med Biol 2007, 52:3467-3491.
42. Yu H., Caldwell C., Mah K., Mozeg D., Coregistered FDG PET/CT-based textural characterization of head and neck cancer for radiation treatment planning. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2009, 28:374-383.
43. Yu H., Caldwell C., Mah K., Poon I., Balogh J., MacKenzie R., et al. Automated radiation targeting in head-and-neck cancer using region-based texture analysis of PET and CT images. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 75:618-625.
44. Sharif M.S., Abbod M., Amira A., Zaidi H. Artificial neural network-based system for PET volume segmentation. Int J Biomed Imaging 2010, 2010:105610.
45. Sebastian T.B., Manjeshwar R.M., Akhurst T.J., Miller J.V. Objective PET lesion segmentation using a spherical mean shift algorithm. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 2006, 9:782-789.
46. Janssen M.H., Aerts H.J., Ollers M.C., Bosmans G., Lee J.A., Buijsen J., et al. Tumor delineation based on time-activity curve differences assessed with dynamic fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography in rectal cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 73:456-465.
47. Boussion N., Cheze-Le Rest C., Hatt M., Visvikis D. Incorporation of wavelet-based denoising in iterative deconvolution for partial volume correction in whole-body PET imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009, 36:1064-1075.
48. Boussion N., Hatt M., Lamare F., Bizais Y., Turzo A., Cheze-Le Rest C., et al. A multiresolution image-based approach for correction of partial volume effects in emission tomography. Phys Med Biol 2006, 51:1857-1876.
49. Aristophanous M., Yap J.T., Killoran J.H., Chen A.B., Berbeco R.I. Four-dimensional positron emission tomography: implications for dose painting of high-uptake regions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011, 80:900-908.
50. Liu C., Pierce L.A., Alessio A.M., Kinahan P.E. The impact of respiratory motion on tumor quantification and delineation in static PET/CT imaging. Phys Med Biol 2009, 54:7345-7362.
51. Lamare F., Cheze-Le Rest C., Visvikis D. Le mouvement respiratoire en imagerie fonctionnelle du cancer: une revue des effets et des méthodes de correction. Traitement Signal 2006, 23(numéro spécial TS et cancérologie):351-361.
52. Warfield S.K., Zou K.H., Wells W.M. Simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE): an algorithm for the validation of image segmentation. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2004, 23:903-921.
53. Daisne J.F., Duprez T., Weynand B., Lonneux M., Hamoir M., Reychler H., et al. Tumor volume in pharyngolaryngeal squamous cell carcinoma: comparison at CT, MR imaging, and FDG PET and validation with surgical specimen. Radiology 2004, 233:93-100.
54. Yu J., Li X., Xing L., Mu D., Fu Z., Sun X., et al. Comparison of tumor volumes as determined by pathologic examination and FDG-PET/CT images of non-small-cell lung cancer: a pilot study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 75:1468-1474.
55. Dahele M., Hwang D., Peressotti C., Sun L., Kusano M., Okhai S., et al. Developing a methodology for three-dimensional correlation of PET-CT images and whole-mount histopathology in non-small-cell lung cancer. Curr Oncol 2008, 15:62-69.
56. Buijsen J., van den Bogaard J., Janssen M.H., Bakers F.C., Engelsman S., Ollers M., et al. FDG-PET provides the best correlation with the tumor specimen compared to MRI and CT in rectal cancer. Radiother Oncol 2011, 98:270-276.
57. Wu K., Ung Y.C., Hornby J., Freeman M., Hwang D., Tsao M.S., et al. PET CT thresholds for radiotherapy target definition in non-small-cell lung cancer: how close are we to the pathologic findings?. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010, 77:699-706.
58. McLennan A., Reilhac A., Brady M. SORTEO: Monte Carlo-based simulator with list-mode capabilities. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2009, 2009:3751-3754.
59. Jan S., Santin G., Strul D., Staelens S., Assie K., Autret D., et al. GATE: a simulation toolkit for PET and SPECT. Phys Med Biol 2004, 49:4543-4561.
60. Zubal I.G., Harrell C.R., Smith E.O., Rattner Z., Gindi G., Hoffer P.B. Computerized three-dimensional segmented human anatomy. Med Phys 1994, 21:299-302.
61. Segars W.P., Sturgeon G., Mendonca S., Grimes J., Tsui B.M. 4D XCAT phantom for multimodality imaging research. Med Phys 2010, 37:4902-4915.
62. Lartizien C., Kuntner C., Goertzen A.L., Evans A.C., Reilhac A. Validation of PET-SORTEO Monte Carlo simulations for the geometries of the MicroPET R4 and Focus 220 PET scanners. Phys Med Biol 2007, 52:4845-4862.
63. Lamare F., Turzo A., Bizais Y., Le Rest C.C., Visvikis D. Validation of a Monte Carlo simulation of the Philips Allegro/GEMINI PET systems using GATE. Phys Med Biol 2006, 51:943-962.
64. Le Maitre A., Segars W., Marache S., Reilhac A., Hatt M., Tomei S., et al. Incorporating patient-specific variability in the simulation of realistic whole-body 18F-FDG distributions for oncology applications. Proc IEEE 2009, 9:2026-2038.
65. Dice L.R. Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species. Ecology 1945, 26:297-302.
66. Geets X., Lee J.A., Castadot P., Bol A., Grégoire V. Rôle potentiel de la TEP-FDG pour la définition du volume tumoral macroscopique (GTV) des cancers des voies aérodigestives supérieures et du poumon. Cancer Radiother 2009, 13:594-599.
67. Larson S.M., Erdi Y., Akhurst T., Mazumdar M., Macapinlac H.A., Finn R.D., et al. Tumor treatment response based on visual and quantitative changes in global tumor glycolysis using PET-FDG imaging. The visual response score and the change in total lesion glycolysis. Clin Positron Imaging 1999, 2:159-171.
68. Cazaentre T., Morschhauser F., Vermandel M., Betrouni N., Prangere T., Steinling M., et al. Pre-therapy 18F-FDG PET quantitative parameters help in predicting the response to radioimmunotherapy in non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010, 37:494-504.
69. Lee H.Y., Hyun S.H., Lee K.S., Kim B.T., Kim J., Shim Y.M., et al. Volume-based parameter of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in malignant pleural mesothelioma: prediction of therapeutic response and prognostic implications. Ann Surg Oncol 2010, 17:2787-2794.
70. El Naqa I., Grigsby P., Apte A., Kidd E., Donnelly E., Khullar D., et al. Exploring feature-based approaches in PET images for predicting cancer treatment outcomes. Pattern Recognit 2009, 42:1162-1171.
71. Eary J.F., O'Sullivan F., O'Sullivan J., Conrad E.U. Spatial heterogeneity in sarcoma 18F-FDG uptake as a predictor of patient outcome. J Nucl Med 2008, 49:1973-1979.
72. Frings V., de Langen A.J., Smit E.F., van Velden F.H., Hoekstra O.S., van Tinteren H., et al. 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.
73. Tomei S., Reilhac A., Visvikis D., Boussion N., Odet C., Giammarile F., et al. OncoPET_DB: a freely distributed database of realistic simulated whole Body 18F-FDG PET images for oncology. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 2010, 57:246-255.