Literature DB >> 21846937

Multi-observation PET image analysis for patient follow-up quantitation and therapy assessment.

S David1, D Visvikis, C Roux, M Hatt.   

Abstract

In positron emission tomography (PET) imaging, an early therapeutic response is usually characterized by variations of semi-quantitative parameters restricted to maximum SUV measured in PET scans during the treatment. Such measurements do not reflect overall tumor volume and radiotracer uptake variations. The proposed approach is based on multi-observation image analysis for merging several PET acquisitions to assess tumor metabolic volume and uptake variations. The fusion algorithm is based on iterative estimation using a stochastic expectation maximization (SEM) algorithm. The proposed method was applied to simulated and clinical follow-up PET images. We compared the multi-observation fusion performance to threshold-based methods, proposed for the assessment of the therapeutic response based on functional volumes. On simulated datasets the adaptive threshold applied independently on both images led to higher errors than the ASEM fusion and on clinical datasets it failed to provide coherent measurements for four patients out of seven due to aberrant delineations. The ASEM method demonstrated improved and more robust estimation of the evaluation leading to more pertinent measurements. Future work will consist in extending the methodology and applying it to clinical multi-tracer datasets in order to evaluate its potential impact on the biological tumor volume definition for radiotherapy applications.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21846937      PMCID: PMC3511249          DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/56/18/001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  24 in total

1.  New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada.

Authors:  P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2000-02-02       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Quantitative positron emission tomography imaging to measure tumor response to therapy: what is the best method?

Authors:  David A Mankoff; Mark Muzi; Kenneth A Krohn
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2003 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.488

Review 3.  Hypoxia in cancer: significance and impact on clinical outcome.

Authors:  Peter Vaupel; Arnulf Mayer
Journal:  Cancer Metastasis Rev       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 9.264

4.  Comparison of different methods for delineation of 18F-FDG PET-positive tissue for target volume definition in radiotherapy of patients with non-Small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Ursula Nestle; Stephanie Kremp; Andrea Schaefer-Schuler; Christiane Sebastian-Welsch; Dirk Hellwig; Christian Rübe; Carl-Martin Kirsch
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 10.057

5.  Prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET image-based parameters in oesophageal cancer and impact of tumour delineation methodology.

Authors:  Mathieu Hatt; Dimitris Visvikis; Nidal M Albarghach; Florent Tixier; Olivier Pradier; Catherine Cheze-le Rest
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2011-03-02       Impact factor: 9.236

6.  Reproducibility of metabolic measurements in malignant tumors using FDG PET.

Authors:  W A Weber; S I Ziegler; R Thödtmann; A R Hanauske; M Schwaiger
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 10.057

7.  Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group.

Authors:  H Young; R Baum; U Cremerius; K Herholz; O Hoekstra; A A Lammertsma; J Pruim; P Price
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 9.162

8.  Tumor Treatment Response Based on Visual and Quantitative Changes in Global Tumor Glycolysis Using PET-FDG Imaging. The Visual Response Score and the Change in Total Lesion Glycolysis.

Authors:  Steven M. Larson; Yusuf Erdi; Timothy Akhurst; Madhu Mazumdar; Homer A. Macapinlac; Ronald D. Finn; Cecille Casilla; Melissa Fazzari; Neil Srivastava; Henry W.D. Yeung; John L. Humm; Jose Guillem; Robert Downey; Martin Karpeh; Alfred E. Cohen; Robert Ginsberg
Journal:  Clin Positron Imaging       Date:  1999-05

9.  Comparative assessment of methods for estimating tumor volume and standardized uptake value in (18)F-FDG PET.

Authors:  Perrine Tylski; Simon Stute; Nicolas Grotus; Kaya Doyeux; Sébastien Hapdey; Isabelle Gardin; Bruno Vanderlinden; Irène Buvat
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2010-01-15       Impact factor: 10.057

10.  Incorporation of wavelet-based denoising in iterative deconvolution for partial volume correction in whole-body PET imaging.

Authors:  N Boussion; C Cheze Le Rest; M Hatt; D Visvikis
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2009-02-18       Impact factor: 9.236

View more
  1 in total

1.  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

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.