Literature DB >> 19910420

Nonrigid versus rigid registration of thoracic 18F-FDG PET and CT in patients with lung cancer: an intraindividual comparison of different breathing maneuvers.

Aleksandar Grgic1, Ursula Nestle, Andrea Schaefer-Schuler, Stephanie Kremp, Elena Ballek, Jochen Fleckenstein, Christian Rübe, Carl-Martin Kirsch, Dirk Hellwig.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19910420     DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.109.065649

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nucl Med        ISSN: 0161-5505            Impact factor:   10.057


  7 in total

1.  Evaluation of whole-body MR to CT deformable image registration.

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

2.  Impact of rigid and nonrigid registration on the determination of 18F-FDG PET-based tumour volume and standardized uptake value in patients with lung cancer.

Authors:  Aleksandar Grgic; Elena Ballek; Jochen Fleckenstein; Norbert Moca; Stephanie Kremp; Andrea Schaefer; Jan-Martin Kuhnigk; Christian Rübe; Carl-Martin Kirsch; Dirk Hellwig
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2011-01-22       Impact factor: 9.236

3.  Experimental Evaluation of a Deformable Registration Algorithm for Motion Correction in PET-CT Guided Biopsy.

Authors:  Rahul Khare; Guillaume Sala; Paul Kinahan; Giuseppe Esposito; Filip Banovac; Kevin Cleary; Andinet Enquobahrie
Journal:  IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Conf Rec (1997)       Date:  2013 Oct-Nov

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

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

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

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

Review 6.  [Advances of precise radiotherapy for lung cancer].

Authors:  Xin Wang; Feng Xu; Yuquan Wei
Journal:  Zhongguo Fei Ai Za Zhi       Date:  2011-11

7.  Accuracy quantification of a deformable image registration tool applied in a clinical setting.

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

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.