Literature DB >> 22755696

Automated measurement of uptake in cerebellum, liver, and aortic arch in full-body FDG PET/CT scans.

Christian Bauer1, Shanhui Sun, Wenqing Sun, Justin Otis, Audrey Wallace, Brian J Smith, John J Sunderland, Michael M Graham, Milan Sonka, John M Buatti, Reinhard R Beichel.   

Abstract

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.
© 2012 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22755696      PMCID: PMC3365916          DOI: 10.1118/1.4711815

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  8 in total

1.  Comparison of simplified quantitative analyses of FDG uptake.

Authors:  M M Graham; L M Peterson; R M Hayward
Journal:  Nucl Med Biol       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 2.408

2.  Automated 3-D segmentation of lungs with lung cancer in CT data using a novel robust active shape model approach.

Authors:  Shanhui Sun; Christian Bauer; Reinhard Beichel
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2011-10-13       Impact factor: 10.048

3.  Flux driven automatic centerline extraction.

Authors:  Sylvain Bouix; Kaleem Siddiqi; Allen Tannenbaum
Journal:  Med Image Anal       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 8.545

4.  Comparison of lesion-to-cerebellum uptake ratios and standardized uptake values in the evaluation of lung nodules with 18F-FDG PET.

Authors:  Sebastian Obrzut; Ryan H Pham; David R Vera; Karam Badran; Carl K Hoha
Journal:  Nucl Med Commun       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 1.690

5.  Dual-modality brain PET-CT image segmentation based on adaptive use of functional and anatomical information.

Authors:  Yong Xia; Stefan Eberl; Lingfeng Wen; Michael Fulham; David Dagan Feng
Journal:  Comput Med Imaging Graph       Date:  2011-06-29       Impact factor: 4.790

6.  Automated brain structure segmentation based on atlas registration and appearance models.

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

7.  Adrenal lesions: characterization with fused PET/CT image in patients with proved or suspected malignancy--initial experience.

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

8.  Comparison and evaluation of methods for liver segmentation from CT datasets.

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

  8 in total
  8 in total

1.  Tumor Subregion Evolution-Based Imaging Features to Assess Early Response and Predict Prognosis in Oropharyngeal Cancer.

Authors:  Jia Wu; Michael F Gensheimer; Nasha Zhang; Meiying Guo; Rachel Liang; Carrie Zhang; Nancy Fischbein; Erqi L Pollom; Beth Beadle; Quynh-Thu Le; Ruijiang Li
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2019-08-16       Impact factor: 10.057

2.  A 3D deep convolutional neural network approach for the automated measurement of cerebellum tracer uptake in FDG PET-CT scans.

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

Review 3.  The Use of Quantitative Imaging in Radiation Oncology: A Quantitative Imaging Network (QIN) Perspective.

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

4.  FDG PET based prediction of response in head and neck cancer treatment: Assessment of new quantitative imaging features.

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

5.  A semi-automated technique determining the liver standardized uptake value reference for tumor delineation in FDG PET-CT.

Authors:  Kenji Hirata; Kentaro Kobayashi; Koon-Pong Wong; Osamu Manabe; Andrew Surmak; Nagara Tamaki; Sung-Cheng Huang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-08-27       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  DICOM for quantitative imaging biomarker development: a standards based approach to sharing clinical data and structured PET/CT analysis results in head and neck cancer research.

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

7.  Quantitative Imaging Informatics for Cancer Research.

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

8.  Tumor Segmentation and Feature Extraction from Whole-Body FDG-PET/CT Using Cascaded 2D and 3D Convolutional Neural Networks.

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

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.