PURPOSE: The purpose of this work was to develop and validate fully automated methods for uptake measurement of cerebellum, liver, and aortic arch in full-body PET/CT scans. Such measurements are of interest in the context of uptake normalization for quantitative assessment of metabolic activity and/or automated image quality control. METHODS: Cerebellum, liver, and aortic arch regions were segmented with different automated approaches. Cerebella were segmented in PET volumes by means of a robust active shape model (ASM) based method. For liver segmentation, a largest possible hyperellipsoid was fitted to the liver in PET scans. The aortic arch was first segmented in CT images of a PET/CT scan by a tubular structure analysis approach, and the segmented result was then mapped to the corresponding PET scan. For each of the segmented structures, the average standardized uptake value (SUV) was calculated. To generate an independent reference standard for method validation, expert image analysts were asked to segment several cross sections of each of the three structures in 134 F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT scans. For each case, the true average SUV was estimated by utilizing statistical models and served as the independent reference standard. RESULTS: For automated aorta and liver SUV measurements, no statistically significant scale or shift differences were observed between automated results and the independent standard. In the case of the cerebellum, the scale and shift were not significantly different, if measured in the same cross sections that were utilized for generating the reference. In contrast, automated results were scaled 5% lower on average although not shifted, if FDG uptake was calculated from the whole segmented cerebellum volume. The estimated reduction in total SUV measurement error ranged between 54.7% and 99.2%, and the reduction was found to be statistically significant for cerebellum and aortic arch. CONCLUSIONS: With the proposed methods, the authors have demonstrated that automated SUV uptake measurements in cerebellum, liver, and aortic arch agree with expert-defined independent standards. The proposed methods were found to be accurate and showed less intra- and interobserver variability, compared to manual analysis. The approach provides an alternative to manual uptake quantification, which is time-consuming. Such an approach will be important for application of quantitative PET imaging to large scale clinical trials.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this work was to develop and validate fully automated methods for uptake measurement of cerebellum, liver, and aortic arch in full-body PET/CT scans. Such measurements are of interest in the context of uptake normalization for quantitative assessment of metabolic activity and/or automated image quality control. METHODS: Cerebellum, liver, and aortic arch regions were segmented with different automated approaches. Cerebella were segmented in PET volumes by means of a robust active shape model (ASM) based method. For liver segmentation, a largest possible hyperellipsoid was fitted to the liver in PET scans. The aortic arch was first segmented in CT images of a PET/CT scan by a tubular structure analysis approach, and the segmented result was then mapped to the corresponding PET scan. For each of the segmented structures, the average standardized uptake value (SUV) was calculated. To generate an independent reference standard for method validation, expert image analysts were asked to segment several cross sections of each of the three structures in 134 F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT scans. For each case, the true average SUV was estimated by utilizing statistical models and served as the independent reference standard. RESULTS: For automated aorta and liver SUV measurements, no statistically significant scale or shift differences were observed between automated results and the independent standard. In the case of the cerebellum, the scale and shift were not significantly different, if measured in the same cross sections that were utilized for generating the reference. In contrast, automated results were scaled 5% lower on average although not shifted, if FDG uptake was calculated from the whole segmented cerebellum volume. The estimated reduction in total SUV measurement error ranged between 54.7% and 99.2%, and the reduction was found to be statistically significant for cerebellum and aortic arch. CONCLUSIONS: With the proposed methods, the authors have demonstrated that automated SUV uptake measurements in cerebellum, liver, and aortic arch agree with expert-defined independent standards. The proposed methods were found to be accurate and showed less intra- and interobserver variability, compared to manual analysis. The approach provides an alternative to manual uptake quantification, which is time-consuming. Such an approach will be important for application of quantitative PET imaging to large scale clinical trials.
Authors: Fedde van der Lijn; Marleen de Bruijne; Stefan Klein; Tom den Heijer; Yoo Y Hoogendam; Aad van der Lugt; Monique M B Breteler; Wiro J Niessen Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2011-09-19 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Michael A Blake; James M A Slattery; Mannudeep K Kalra; Elkan F Halpern; Alan J Fischman; Peter R Mueller; Giles W Boland Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Tobias Heimann; Bram van Ginneken; Martin A Styner; Yulia Arzhaeva; Volker Aurich; Christian Bauer; Andreas Beck; Christoph Becker; Reinhard Beichel; György Bekes; Fernando Bello; Gerd Binnig; Horst Bischof; Alexander Bornik; Peter M M Cashman; Ying Chi; Andrés Cordova; Benoit M Dawant; Márta Fidrich; Jacob D Furst; Daisuke Furukawa; Lars Grenacher; Joachim Hornegger; Dagmar Kainmüller; Richard I Kitney; Hidefumi Kobatake; Hans Lamecker; Thomas Lange; Jeongjin Lee; Brian Lennon; Rui Li; Senhu Li; Hans-Peter Meinzer; Gábor Nemeth; Daniela S Raicu; Anne-Mareike Rau; Eva M van Rikxoort; Mikaël Rousson; László Rusko; Kinda A Saddi; Günter Schmidt; Dieter Seghers; Akinobu Shimizu; Pieter Slagmolen; Erich Sorantin; Grzegorz Soza; Ruchaneewan Susomboon; Jonathan M Waite; Andreas Wimmer; Ivo Wolf Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2009-02-10 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Xiaofan Xiong; Timothy J Linhardt; Weiren Liu; Brian J Smith; Wenqing Sun; Christian Bauer; John J Sunderland; Michael M Graham; John M Buatti; Reinhard R Beichel Journal: Med Phys Date: 2020-01-06 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Robert H Press; Hui-Kuo G Shu; Hyunsuk Shim; James M Mountz; Brenda F Kurland; Richard L Wahl; Ella F Jones; Nola M Hylton; Elizabeth R Gerstner; Robert J Nordstrom; Lori Henderson; Karen A Kurdziel; Bhadrasain Vikram; Michael A Jacobs; Matthias Holdhoff; Edward Taylor; David A Jaffray; Lawrence H Schwartz; David A Mankoff; Paul E Kinahan; Hannah M Linden; Philippe Lambin; Thomas J Dilling; Daniel L Rubin; Lubomir Hadjiiski; John M Buatti Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-06-30 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Reinhard R Beichel; Ethan J Ulrich; Brian J Smith; Christian Bauer; Bartley Brown; Thomas Casavant; John J Sunderland; Michael M Graham; John M Buatti Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-04-19 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Andriy Fedorov; David Clunie; Ethan Ulrich; Christian Bauer; Andreas Wahle; Bartley Brown; Michael Onken; Jörg Riesmeier; Steve Pieper; Ron Kikinis; John Buatti; Reinhard R Beichel Journal: PeerJ Date: 2016-05-24 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Andrey Fedorov; Reinhard Beichel; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; David Clunie; Michael Onken; Jörg Riesmeier; Christian Herz; Christian Bauer; Andrew Beers; Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin; Andras Lasso; Csaba Pinter; Steve Pieper; Marco Nolden; Klaus Maier-Hein; Markus D Herrmann; Joel Saltz; Fred Prior; Fiona Fennessy; John Buatti; Ron Kikinis Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2020-05
Authors: Skander Jemaa; Jill Fredrickson; Richard A D Carano; Tina Nielsen; Alex de Crespigny; Thomas Bengtsson Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 4.056