UNLABELLED: The segmentation of metastatic volumes in PET is usually performed by thresholding methods. In a clinical application, the optimum threshold obtained from the adaptive thresholding method requires a priori estimation of the lesion volume from anatomic images such as CT. We describe an iterative thresholding method (ITM) used to estimate the PET volumes without anatomic a priori knowledge and its application to clinical images. METHODS: The ITM is based on threshold-volume curves at varying source-to-background (S/B) ratio acquired from a body phantom. The spheres and background were filled either with (18)F-FDG or Na(124)I ((124)I). These calibrated S/B-threshold-volume curves were used in estimating the volume by applying an iterative procedure. The ITM was validated with a PET phantom containing spheres and with 39 PET tumors that were discernable on CT by using whole-body (18)F-FDG (15 patients) and (124)I PET/CT (9 patients): The measured S/B ratios of the lesions were estimated from PET images, and their volumes were iteratively calculated using the calibrated S/B-threshold-volume curves. The resulting PET volumes were then compared with the known sphere inner volume and CT volumes of tumors that served as gold standards. RESULTS: Phantom data analysis showed that the S/B-threshold-volume curves of (18)F-FDG and (124)I were similar. The average absolute deviation (expressed as a percentage of the expected volume) obtained in the PET validation phantom was 10% for volumes larger than 1.0 mL; sphere volumes of 0.5 mL showed a significantly larger deviation. For patients, the average absolute deviation for volumes between 0.8 and 7.5 mL was about 9% (31 lesions), whereas volumes larger than 7.5 mL showed an average volume mismatch of 15% (8 lesions). CONCLUSION: The ITM sufficiently estimated the clinical volumes in the range of 0.8-7.5 mL; volumes larger than 7.5 mL showed greater deviations that were still acceptable. These findings are associated with the limitation of the ITM. The ITM is especially useful for lesions that are only visible on PET. As a consequence, the lesion dosimetry is feasible with sufficient accuracy using PET images only.
UNLABELLED: The segmentation of metastatic volumes in PET is usually performed by thresholding methods. In a clinical application, the optimum threshold obtained from the adaptive thresholding method requires a priori estimation of the lesion volume from anatomic images such as CT. We describe an iterative thresholding method (ITM) used to estimate the PET volumes without anatomic a priori knowledge and its application to clinical images. METHODS: The ITM is based on threshold-volume curves at varying source-to-background (S/B) ratio acquired from a body phantom. The spheres and background were filled either with (18)F-FDG or Na(124)I ((124)I). These calibrated S/B-threshold-volume curves were used in estimating the volume by applying an iterative procedure. The ITM was validated with a PET phantom containing spheres and with 39 PET tumors that were discernable on CT by using whole-body (18)F-FDG (15 patients) and (124)I PET/CT (9 patients): The measured S/B ratios of the lesions were estimated from PET images, and their volumes were iteratively calculated using the calibrated S/B-threshold-volume curves. The resulting PET volumes were then compared with the known sphere inner volume and CT volumes of tumors that served as gold standards. RESULTS: Phantom data analysis showed that the S/B-threshold-volume curves of (18)F-FDG and (124)I were similar. The average absolute deviation (expressed as a percentage of the expected volume) obtained in the PET validation phantom was 10% for volumes larger than 1.0 mL; sphere volumes of 0.5 mL showed a significantly larger deviation. For patients, the average absolute deviation for volumes between 0.8 and 7.5 mL was about 9% (31 lesions), whereas volumes larger than 7.5 mL showed an average volume mismatch of 15% (8 lesions). CONCLUSION: The ITM sufficiently estimated the clinical volumes in the range of 0.8-7.5 mL; volumes larger than 7.5 mL showed greater deviations that were still acceptable. These findings are associated with the limitation of the ITM. The ITM is especially useful for lesions that are only visible on PET. As a consequence, the lesion dosimetry is feasible with sufficient accuracy using PET images only.
Authors: L S Freudenberg; G Antoch; A Frilling; W Jentzen; S J Rosenbaum; H Kühl; A Bockisch; R Görges Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-01-12 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Hua Li; Wade L Thorstad; Kenneth J Biehl; Richard Laforest; Yi Su; Kooresh I Shoghi; Eric D Donnelly; Daniel A Low; Wei Lu Journal: Med Phys Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Mathieu Hatt; John A Lee; Charles R Schmidtlein; Issam El Naqa; Curtis Caldwell; Elisabetta De Bernardi; Wei Lu; Shiva Das; Xavier Geets; Vincent Gregoire; Robert Jeraj; Michael P MacManus; Osama R Mawlawi; Ursula Nestle; Andrei B Pugachev; Heiko Schöder; Tony Shepherd; Emiliano Spezi; Dimitris Visvikis; Habib Zaidi; Assen S Kirov Journal: Med Phys Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: James Nagarajah; Walter Jentzen; Verena Hartung; Sandra Rosenbaum-Krumme; Christian Mikat; Till Alexander Heusner; Gerald Antoch; Andreas Bockisch; Alexander Stahl Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-07-08 Impact factor: 9.236