PURPOSE: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common form of dementia. Clinically, it is characterized by progressive cognitive and functional impairment with structural hallmarks of cortical atrophy and ventricular expansion. Amyloid plaque aggregation is also known to occur in AD subjects. In-vivo imaging of amyloid plaques is now possible with positron emission tomography (PET) radioligands. PET imaging suffers from a degrading phenomenon known as the partial volume effect (PVE). The quantitative accuracy of PET images is reduced by PVEs primarily due to the limited spatial resolution of the scanner. The degree of PVE is influenced by structure size, with smaller structures tending to suffer from more severe PVEs such as atrophied grey matter regions. The aims of this paper were to investigate the effect of partial volume correction (PVC) on the quantification of amyloid PET and to highlight the importance of selecting an appropriate PVC technique. METHODS: An improved PVC technique, region-based voxel-wise (RBV) correction, was compared against existing Van-Cittert (VC) and Müller-Gärtner (MG) methods using amyloid PET imaging data. Digital phantom data were produced using segmented MRI scans from a control subject and an AD subject. Typical tracer distributions were generated for each of the phantom anatomies. Also examined were 70 clinical PET scans acquired using [(18)F]flutemetamol. Volume of interest (VOI) analysis was performed for corrected and uncorrected images. RESULTS: PVC was shown to improve the quantitative accuracy of regional analysis performed on amyloid PET images. Of the corrections applied, VC deconvolution demonstrated the worst recovery of grey matter values. MG PVC was shown to induce biases in some grey matter regions due to grey matter variability. In addition, white matter variability was shown to influence the accuracy of MG PVC in cortical grey matter and also cerebellar grey matter, a typical reference region for amyloid PET normalization in sporadic AD. RBV was shown to be more accurate than MG in terms of grey matter and white matter uptake. An increase in within-group variability after PVC was observed and is believed to be a genuine, more accurate representation of the data rather than a correction-induced error. The standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) threshold for classifying subjects as either amyloid-positive or amyloid-negative was found to be 1.64 in the uncorrected dataset, rising to 2.25 after PVC. CONCLUSION: Care should be taken when applying PVC to amyloid PET images. Assumptions made in existing PVC strategies can induce biases that could lead to erroneous inferences about uptake in certain regions. The proposed RBV PVC technique accounts for within-compartment variability, with the potential to reduce errors of this kind.
PURPOSE:Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common form of dementia. Clinically, it is characterized by progressive cognitive and functional impairment with structural hallmarks of cortical atrophy and ventricular expansion. Amyloid plaque aggregation is also known to occur in AD subjects. In-vivo imaging of amyloid plaques is now possible with positron emission tomography (PET) radioligands. PET imaging suffers from a degrading phenomenon known as the partial volume effect (PVE). The quantitative accuracy of PET images is reduced by PVEs primarily due to the limited spatial resolution of the scanner. The degree of PVE is influenced by structure size, with smaller structures tending to suffer from more severe PVEs such as atrophied grey matter regions. The aims of this paper were to investigate the effect of partial volume correction (PVC) on the quantification of amyloid PET and to highlight the importance of selecting an appropriate PVC technique. METHODS: An improved PVC technique, region-based voxel-wise (RBV) correction, was compared against existing Van-Cittert (VC) and Müller-Gärtner (MG) methods using amyloid PET imaging data. Digital phantom data were produced using segmented MRI scans from a control subject and an AD subject. Typical tracer distributions were generated for each of the phantom anatomies. Also examined were 70 clinical PET scans acquired using [(18)F]flutemetamol. Volume of interest (VOI) analysis was performed for corrected and uncorrected images. RESULTS: PVC was shown to improve the quantitative accuracy of regional analysis performed on amyloid PET images. Of the corrections applied, VC deconvolution demonstrated the worst recovery of grey matter values. MG PVC was shown to induce biases in some grey matter regions due to grey matter variability. In addition, white matter variability was shown to influence the accuracy of MG PVC in cortical grey matter and also cerebellar grey matter, a typical reference region for amyloid PET normalization in sporadic AD. RBV was shown to be more accurate than MG in terms of grey matter and white matter uptake. An increase in within-group variability after PVC was observed and is believed to be a genuine, more accurate representation of the data rather than a correction-induced error. The standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) threshold for classifying subjects as either amyloid-positive or amyloid-negative was found to be 1.64 in the uncorrected dataset, rising to 2.25 after PVC. CONCLUSION: Care should be taken when applying PVC to amyloid PET images. Assumptions made in existing PVC strategies can induce biases that could lead to erroneous inferences about uptake in certain regions. The proposed RBV PVC technique accounts for within-compartment variability, with the potential to reduce errors of this kind.
Authors: Bruce Fischl; David H Salat; Evelina Busa; Marilyn Albert; Megan Dieterich; Christian Haselgrove; Andre van der Kouwe; Ron Killiany; David Kennedy; Shuna Klaveness; Albert Montillo; Nikos Makris; Bruce Rosen; Anders M Dale Journal: Neuron Date: 2002-01-31 Impact factor: 17.173
Authors: John A D Aston; Vincent J Cunningham; Marie-Claude Asselin; Alexander Hammers; Alan C Evans; Roger N Gunn Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: G Rizzo; I Castiglioni; G Russo; M G Tana; F Dell'Acqua; M C Gilardi; F Fazio; S Cerutti Journal: Methods Inf Med Date: 2007 Impact factor: 2.176
Authors: Rik Vandenberghe; Koen Van Laere; Adrian Ivanoiu; Eric Salmon; Christine Bastin; Eric Triau; Steen Hasselbalch; Ian Law; Allan Andersen; Alex Korner; Lennart Minthon; Gaëtan Garraux; Natalie Nelissen; Guy Bormans; Chris Buckley; Rikard Owenius; Lennart Thurfjell; Gill Farrar; David J Brooks Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Boon-Keng Teo; Youngho Seo; Stephen L Bacharach; Jorge A Carrasquillo; Steven K Libutti; Himanshu Shukla; Bruce H Hasegawa; Randall A Hawkins; Benjamin L Franc Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Yi Li; Juha O Rinne; Lisa Mosconi; Elizabeth Pirraglia; Henry Rusinek; Susan DeSanti; Nina Kemppainen; Kjell Någren; Byeong-Chae Kim; Wai Tsui; Mony J de Leon Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-06-20 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Hui Liu; Chung Chan; Yariv Grobshtein; Tianyu Ma; Yaqiang Liu; Shi Wang; Mitchel R Stacy; Albert J Sinusas; Chi Liu Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2015-08-21 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Douglas N Greve; David H Salat; Spencer L Bowen; David Izquierdo-Garcia; Aaron P Schultz; Ciprian Catana; J Alex Becker; Claus Svarer; Gitte M Knudsen; Reisa A Sperling; Keith A Johnson Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Zhihao Zha; Seok Rye Choi; Karl Ploessl; Brian P Lieberman; Wenchao Qu; Franz Hefti; Mark Mintun; Daniel Skovronsky; Hank F Kung Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2011-11-09 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Yi Su; Tyler M Blazey; Abraham Z Snyder; Marcus E Raichle; Daniel S Marcus; Beau M Ances; Randall J Bateman; Nigel J Cairns; Patricia Aldea; Lisa Cash; Jon J Christensen; Karl Friedrichsen; Russ C Hornbeck; Angela M Farrar; Christopher J Owen; Richard Mayeux; Adam M Brickman; William Klunk; Julie C Price; Paul M Thompson; Bernadino Ghetti; Andrew J Saykin; Reisa A Sperling; Keith A Johnson; Peter R Schofield; Virginia Buckles; John C Morris; Tammie L S Benzinger Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2014-12-05 Impact factor: 6.556