Effects of reusing baseline volumes of interest by applying (non-)rigid image registration on positron emission tomography response assessments

PLoS ONE

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2014, Pages

  Van Velden, Floris H P ^a   Nissen, Ida A ^a   Hayes, Wendy ^b   Velasquez, Linda M ^b   Hoekstra, Otto S ^a   Boellaard, Ronald ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18;

ADULT; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; CLASSIFICATION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COLORECTAL CARCINOMA; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE REGISTRATION; LUNG LESION; MALE; PET SCANNER; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; TUMOR VOLUME; VOLUMES OF INTEREST;

GASTROINTESTINAL NEOPLASMS; HUMANS; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84900298104     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087167     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Bussink J, Kaanders JH, van der Graaf WT, Oyen WJ (2011) PET-CT for radiotherapy treatment planning and response monitoring in solid tumors. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 8: 233-242.
2. van Velden FHP, Cheebsumon P, Yaqub M, Smit EF, Hoekstra OS, et al. (2011) 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 38: 1636-1647.
3. Cheebsumon P, van Velden FH, Yaqub M, Frings V, de Langen AJ, et al. (2011) Effects of image characteristics on performance of tumor delineation methods: a test-retest assessment. J Nucl Med 52: 1550-1558.
4. Frings V, de Langen AJ, Smit EF, van Velden FHP, Hoekstra OS, et al. (2010) Repeatability of metabolically active volume measurements with 18F-FDG and 18F-FLT PET in non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med 51: 1870-1877.
5. Cheebsumon P, Yaqub M, van Velden FH, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA, et al. (2011) Impact of [(1)(8)F]FDG PET imaging parameters on automatic tumour delineation: need for improved tumour delineation methodology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38: 2136-2144.
6. Cheebsumon P, Boellaard R, De Ruysscher D, van Elmpt W, van Baardwijk A, et al. (2012) Assessment of tumour size in PET/CT lung cancer studies: PET-and CT-based methods compared to pathology. EJNMMI Res 2: 56.
7. De Moor K, Nuyts J, Plessers L, Stroobants S, Maes F, Dupont P (2006) Non-rigid registration with position dependent rigidity for whole body PET follow-up studies. IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record 3502-3506.
8. van Velden FHP, van Beers P, Nuyts J, Velasquez L, Hayes W, et al. (2012) Effects of rigid and non-rigid image registration on test-retest variability of quantitative FDG studies. EJNMMI Res 2: 10.
9. Li X, Abramson RG, Arlinghaus LR, Chakravarthy AB, Abramson V, et al. (2012) An algorithm for longitudinal registration of PET/CT images acquired during neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: preliminary results. EJNMMI Res 2: 62.
10. Velasquez LM, Boellaard R, Kollia G, Hayes W, Hoekstra OS, et al. (2009) Repeatability of 18F-FDG PET in a multicenter phase I study of patients with advanced gastrointestinal malignancies. J Nucl Med 50: 1646-1654.
11. Garrett CR, Siu LL, El-Khoueiry A, Buter J, Rocha-Lima CM, et al. (2011) Phase I dose-escalation study to determine the safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of brivanib alaninate in combination with full-dose cetuximab in patients with advanced gastrointestinal malignancies who have failed prior therapy. Br J Cancer 105: 44-52.
12. Boellaard R, O'Doherty MJ, Weber WA, Mottaghy FM, Lonsdale MN, et al. (2010) FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 37: 181-200.
13. Sugawara Y, Zasadny KR, Neuhoff AW, Wahl RL (1999) Reevaluation of the standardized uptake value for FDG: variations with body weight and methods for correction. Radiology 213: 521-525. (Pubitemid 29510601)
14. Klein S, Staring M, Murphy K, Viergever MA, Pluim JP (2010) elastix: a toolbox for intensity-based medical image registration. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 29: 196-205.
15. Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA (2009) From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med 50 Suppl 1: 122S-150S.
16. El Naqa I, Grigsby P, Apte A, Kidd E, Donnelly E, et al. (2009) Exploring feature-based approaches in PET images for predicting cancer treatment outcomes. Pattern Recognit 42: 1162-1171.
17. Watabe T, Tatsumi M, Watabe H, Isohashi K, Kato H, et al. (2012) Intratumoral heterogeneity of F-18 FDG uptake differentiates between gastrointestinal stromal tumors and abdominal malignant lymphomas on PET/CT. Ann Nucl Med 26: 222-227.
18. van Velden FHP, Nissen IA, Jongsma F, Velasquez LM, Hayes W, et al. (2013) Test-Retest Variability of Various Quantitative Measures to Characterize Tracer Uptake and/or Tracer Uptake Heterogeneity in Metastasized Liver for Patients with Colorectal Carcinoma. Mol Imaging Biol: In press.
19. van Elmpt W, Hamill J, Jones J, De Ruysscher D, Lambin P, et al. (2011) Optimal gating compared to 3D and 4D PET reconstruction for characterization of lung tumours. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38: 843-855.
20. Shekhar R, Walimbe V, Raja S, Zagrodsky V, Kanvinde M, et al. (2005) Automated 3-dimensional elastic registration of whole-body PET and CT from separate or combined scanners. J Nucl Med 46: 1488-1496. (Pubitemid 46177969)
21. Grgic A, Nestle U, Schaefer-Schuler A, Kremp S, Ballek E, et al. (2009) 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 50: 1921-1926.
22. van Herk M, Gilhuijs KG, de Munck J, Touw A (1997) Effect of image artifacts, organ motion, and poor segmentation on the reliability and accuracy of three-dimensional chamfer matching. Comput Aided Surg 2: 346-355. (Pubitemid 28223930)
23. Brooks FJ (2013) Area under the cumulative SUV-volume histogram is not a viable metric of intratumoral metabolic heterogeneity. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40: 967-968.
24. van Velden FHP, Boellaard R (2013) Reply to: Area under the cumulative SUV-volume histogram is not a viable metric of intratumoral metabolic heterogeneity. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40: 1469-1470.
25. Brooks FJ, Grigsby PW (2013) The effect of small tumor volumes on studies of intratumoral heterogeneity of tracer uptake. J Nucl Med: In press.
26. Hatt M, Visvikis D, Albarghach NM, Tixier F, Pradier O, et al. (2011) Prognostic value of (18)F-FDG PET image-based parameters in oesophageal cancer and impact of tumour delineation methodology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38: 1191-1202.
27. Hutton BF, Braun M, Thurfjell L, Lau DY (2002) Image registration: an essential tool for nuclear medicine. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 29: 559-577.
28. Hatt M, Tixier F, Cheze Le RC, Pradier O, Visvikis D (2013) Robustness of intratumour (1)(8)F-FDG PET uptake heterogeneity quantification for therapy response prediction in oesophageal carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40: 1662-1671.
29. Cheng G, Alavi A, Lim E, Werner TJ, Del Bello CV, et al. (2013) Dynamic changes of FDG uptake and clearance in normal tissues. Mol Imaging Biol 15: 345-352.
30. Cheebsumon P, van Velden FH, Yaqub M, Hoekstra CJ, Velasquez LM, et al. (2011) Measurement of metabolic tumor volume: static versus dynamic FDG scans. EJNMMI Res 1: 35.