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

EJNMMI Research

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 1-13

  van Velden, Floris H P ^a   van Beers, Paul ^a   Nuyts, Johan ^b   Velasquez, Linda M ^c   Hayes, Wendy ^c   Lammertsma, Adriaan A ^a   Boellaard, Ronald ^a   Loeckx, Dirk ^d  

^a VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^c BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Image registration; Non rigid; Positron emission tomography (PET); Rigid; Test retest variability

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18;

ADULT; ADVANCED CANCER; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COLORECTAL CANCER; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; GLYCOLYSIS; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; MALE; MEDICAL PARAMETERS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; REFERENCE VALUE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; STANDARDIZED UPTAKE VALUE; TEST RETEST RELIABILITY; TUMOR VOLUME; WHOLE BODY SCINTISCANNING;

EID: 84875912310     PISSN: None     EISSN: 2191219X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/2191-219X-2-10     Document Type: Article

References (19)

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.
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.
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.
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 followup 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.
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.
7. Boellaard R: Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med 2009, 50(Suppl 1):11S-20S.
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.
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. 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.
11. Loeckx D: Automated nonrigid intra-patient image registration using Bsplines. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.