UNLABELLED: In lung cancer, (18)F-FDG PET, CT, and (18)F-FDG PET/CT are used for noninvasive staging and therapy planning. Even with improved image registration techniques-especially in the modern hybrid PET/CT scanners-inaccuracies in the fusion process may occur, leading to errors in image interpretation. The aim of this study was to investigate by an intraindividual analysis whether, in comparison with a rigid algorithm, a nonrigid registration algorithm improves the quality of fusion between (18)F-FDG PET and CT. METHODS: Sixteen patients with histologically proven non-small cell lung cancer underwent a thoracic (18)F-FDG PET acquisition in radiotherapy treatment position and 3 CT acquisitions (expiration, inspiration, and mid breath-hold) on the same day. All scans were registered with rigid and nonrigid procedures, resulting in 6 fused datasets: rigid inspiration, rigid expiration, rigid mid breath-hold, nonrigid inspiration, nonrigid expiration, and nonrigid mid breath-hold. The quality of alignment was assessed by 3 experienced readers at 8 anatomic landmarks: lung apices, aortic arch, heart, spine, sternum, carina, diaphragm, and tumor using an alignment score ranging from 1 (no alignment) to 5 (exact alignment). RESULTS: Nonrigid PET/CT showed better alignment than rigid PET/CT (3.5 +/- 0.7 vs. 3.3 +/- 0.7, P < 0.001). Regarding the breathing maneuver, no difference between nonrigid mid breath-hold and rigid mid breath-hold was observed. In contrast, the alignment quality significantly improved from rigid expiration to nonrigid expiration (3.4 +/- 0.7 vs. 3.6 +/- 0.7, P < 0.001) and from rigid inspiration to nonrigid inspiration (3.1 +/- 0.7 vs. 3.3 +/- 0.7, P < 0.001). With regard to individual landmarks, an improvement in fusion quality through the use of nonrigid registration was obvious at the lung apices, carina, and aortic arch. CONCLUSION: The alignment quality of thoracic (18)F-FDG PET/CT exhibits a marked dependence on the breathing maneuver performed during the CT acquisition, as demonstrated in an intraindividual comparison. Nonrigid registration is a significant improvement over rigid registration if the CT is performed during full inspiration or full expiration. The best fusion results are obtained with the CT performed at mid breath-hold using rigid registration, without an improvement using nonrigid algorithms.
UNLABELLED: In lung cancer, (18)F-FDG PET, CT, and (18)F-FDG PET/CT are used for noninvasive staging and therapy planning. Even with improved image registration techniques-especially in the modern hybrid PET/CT scanners-inaccuracies in the fusion process may occur, leading to errors in image interpretation. The aim of this study was to investigate by an intraindividual analysis whether, in comparison with a rigid algorithm, a nonrigid registration algorithm improves the quality of fusion between (18)F-FDG PET and CT. METHODS: Sixteen patients with histologically proven non-small cell lung cancer underwent a thoracic (18)F-FDG PET acquisition in radiotherapy treatment position and 3 CT acquisitions (expiration, inspiration, and mid breath-hold) on the same day. All scans were registered with rigid and nonrigid procedures, resulting in 6 fused datasets: rigid inspiration, rigid expiration, rigid mid breath-hold, nonrigid inspiration, nonrigid expiration, and nonrigid mid breath-hold. The quality of alignment was assessed by 3 experienced readers at 8 anatomic landmarks: lung apices, aortic arch, heart, spine, sternum, carina, diaphragm, and tumor using an alignment score ranging from 1 (no alignment) to 5 (exact alignment). RESULTS: Nonrigid PET/CT showed better alignment than rigid PET/CT (3.5 +/- 0.7 vs. 3.3 +/- 0.7, P < 0.001). Regarding the breathing maneuver, no difference between nonrigid mid breath-hold and rigid mid breath-hold was observed. In contrast, the alignment quality significantly improved from rigid expiration to nonrigid expiration (3.4 +/- 0.7 vs. 3.6 +/- 0.7, P < 0.001) and from rigid inspiration to nonrigid inspiration (3.1 +/- 0.7 vs. 3.3 +/- 0.7, P < 0.001). With regard to individual landmarks, an improvement in fusion quality through the use of nonrigid registration was obvious at the lung apices, carina, and aortic arch. CONCLUSION: The alignment quality of thoracic (18)F-FDG PET/CT exhibits a marked dependence on the breathing maneuver performed during the CT acquisition, as demonstrated in an intraindividual comparison. Nonrigid registration is a significant improvement over rigid registration if the CT is performed during full inspiration or full expiration. The best fusion results are obtained with the CT performed at mid breath-hold using rigid registration, without an improvement using nonrigid algorithms.
Authors: A Akbarzadeh; D Gutierrez; A Baskin; M R Ay; A Ahmadian; N Riahi Alam; K O Lövblad; H Zaidi Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2013-07-08 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Floris Hp van Velden; Paul van Beers; Johan Nuyts; Linda M Velasquez; Wendy Hayes; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Ronald Boellaard; Dirk Loeckx Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2012-03-10 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Floris H P van Velden; Ida A Nissen; Wendy Hayes; Linda M Velasquez; Otto S Hoekstra; Ronald Boellaard Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-01-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Christoph Hoffmann; Sonja Krause; Eva M Stoiber; Angela Mohr; Stefan Rieken; Oliver Schramm; Jürgen Debus; Florian Sterzing; Rolf Bendl; Kristina Giske Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2014-01-06 Impact factor: 2.102