Literature DB >> 18072487

A Gaussian mixture model for definition of lung tumor volumes in positron emission tomography.

Michalis Aristophanous1, Bill C Penney, Mary K Martel, Charles A Pelizzari.   

Abstract

The increased interest in 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) in radiation treatment planning in the past five years necessitated the independent and accurate segmentation of gross tumor volume (GTV) from FDG-PET scans. In some studies the radiation oncologist contours the GTV based on a computed tomography scan, while incorporating pertinent data from the PET images. Alternatively, a simple threshold, typically 40% of the maximum intensity, has been employed to differentiate tumor from normal tissue, while other researchers have developed algorithms to aid the PET based GTV definition. None of these methods, however, results in reliable PET tumor segmentation that can be used for more sophisticated treatment plans. For this reason, we developed a Gaussian mixture model (GMM) based segmentation technique on selected PET tumor regions from non-small cell lung cancer patients. The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of using a GMM-based tumor volume definition in a robust, reliable and reproducible way. A GMM relies on the idea that any distribution, in our case a distribution of image intensities, can be expressed as a mixture of Gaussian densities representing different classes. According to our implementation, each class belongs to one of three regions in the image; the background (B), the uncertain (U) and the target (T), and from these regions we can obtain the tumor volume. User interaction in the implementation is required, but is limited to the initialization of the model parameters and the selection of an "analysis region" to which the modeling is restricted. The segmentation was developed on three and tested on another four clinical cases to ensure robustness against differences observed in the clinic. It also compared favorably with thresholding at 40% of the maximum intensity and a threshold determination function based on tumor to background image intensities proposed in a recent paper. The parts of the method that are user dependent were evaluated and resulted in initial estimates of the method's precision, which is in the order of +/-10% of the average tumor volume estimate. With this work we have established the applicability of the GMM-based segmentation on clinical studies and we have made an initial assessment of the method's precision with respect to tumor volume segmentation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18072487     DOI: 10.1118/1.2791035

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  24 in total

1.  Patterns-of-failure guided biological target volume definition for head and neck cancer patients: FDG-PET and dosimetric analysis of dose escalation candidate subregions.

Authors:  Abdallah S R Mohamed; Carlos E Cardenas; Adam S Garden; Musaddiq J Awan; Crosby D Rock; Sarah A Westergaard; G Brandon Gunn; Abdelaziz M Belal; Ahmed G El-Gowily; Stephen Y Lai; David I Rosenthal; Clifton D Fuller; Michalis Aristophanous
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2017-07-31       Impact factor: 6.280

Review 2.  PET-guided delineation of radiation therapy treatment volumes: a survey of image segmentation techniques.

Authors:  Habib Zaidi; Issam El Naqa
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2010-03-25       Impact factor: 9.236

3.  Comparative methods for PET image segmentation in pharyngolaryngeal squamous cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Habib Zaidi; Mehrsima Abdoli; Carolina Llina Fuentes; Issam M El Naqa
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 9.236

4.  Classification and evaluation strategies of auto-segmentation approaches for PET: Report of AAPM task group No. 211.

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

5.  Hybrid positron emission tomography segmentation of heterogeneous lung tumors using 3D Slicer: improved GrowCut algorithm with threshold initialization.

Authors:  Hannah Mary T Thomas; Devadhas Devakumar; Balukrishna Sasidharan; Stephen R Bowen; Danie Kingslin Heck; E James Jebaseelan Samuel
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2017-01-23

Review 6.  A review on segmentation of positron emission tomography images.

Authors:  Brent Foster; Ulas Bagci; Awais Mansoor; Ziyue Xu; Daniel J Mollura
Journal:  Comput Biol Med       Date:  2014-04-28       Impact factor: 4.589

Review 7.  Vision 20/20: perspectives on automated image segmentation for radiotherapy.

Authors:  Gregory Sharp; Karl D Fritscher; Vladimir Pekar; Marta Peroni; Nadya Shusharina; Harini Veeraraghavan; Jinzhong Yang
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  The first MICCAI challenge on PET tumor segmentation.

Authors:  Mathieu Hatt; Baptiste Laurent; Anouar Ouahabi; Hadi Fayad; Shan Tan; Laquan Li; Wei Lu; Vincent Jaouen; Clovis Tauber; Jakub Czakon; Filip Drapejkowski; Witold Dyrka; Sorina Camarasu-Pop; Frédéric Cervenansky; Pascal Girard; Tristan Glatard; Michael Kain; Yao Yao; Christian Barillot; Assen Kirov; Dimitris Visvikis
Journal:  Med Image Anal       Date:  2017-12-09       Impact factor: 8.545

9.  A multimodality segmentation framework for automatic target delineation in head and neck radiotherapy.

Authors:  Jinzhong Yang; Beth M Beadle; Adam S Garden; David L Schwartz; Michalis Aristophanous
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  Malignant lesion segmentation in contrast-enhanced breast MR images based on the marker-controlled watershed.

Authors:  Yunfeng Cui; Yongqiang Tan; Binsheng Zhao; Laura Liberman; Rakesh Parbhu; Jennifer Kaplan; Maria Theodoulou; Clifford Hudis; Lawrence H Schwartz
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 4.071

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.