Tobias Tuszynski1, Michael Rullmann1,2, Julia Luthardt1, Daniel Butzke1, Solveig Tiepolt1, Hermann-Josef Gertz3, Swen Hesse1,2, Anita Seese1, Donald Lobsien4, Osama Sabri1,2, Henryk Barthel5. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Leipzig University Medical Centre, Liebigstraße 18, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. 2. Integrated Treatment and Research Centre (IFB) Adiposity Diseases, Leipzig University Medical Centre, Leipzig, Germany. 3. Department of Psychiatry, Leipzig University Medical Centre, Leipzig, Germany. 4. Department of Neuroradiology, Leipzig University Medical Centre, Leipzig, Germany. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Leipzig University Medical Centre, Liebigstraße 18, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. barh@medizin.uni-leipzig.de.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: For regional quantification of nuclear brain imaging data, defining volumes of interest (VOIs) by hand is still the gold standard. As this procedure is time-consuming and operator-dependent, a variety of software tools for automated identification of neuroanatomical structures were developed. As the quality and performance of those tools are poorly investigated so far in analyzing amyloid PET data, we compared in this project four algorithms for automated VOI definition (HERMES Brass, two PMOD approaches, and FreeSurfer) against the conventional method. We systematically analyzed florbetaben brain PET and MRI data of ten patients with probable Alzheimer's dementia (AD) and ten age-matched healthy controls (HCs) collected in a previous clinical study. METHODS: VOIs were manually defined on the data as well as through the four automated workflows. Standardized uptake value ratios (SUVRs) with the cerebellar cortex as a reference region were obtained for each VOI. SUVR comparisons between ADs and HCs were carried out using Mann-Whitney-U tests, and effect sizes (Cohen's d) were calculated. SUVRs of automatically generated VOIs were correlated with SUVRs of conventionally derived VOIs (Pearson's tests). RESULTS: The composite neocortex SUVRs obtained by manually defined VOIs were significantly higher for ADs vs. HCs (p=0.010, d=1.53). This was also the case for the four tested automated approaches which achieved effect sizes of d=1.38 to d=1.62. SUVRs of automatically generated VOIs correlated significantly with those of the hand-drawn VOIs in a number of brain regions, with regional differences in the degree of these correlations. Best overall correlation was observed in the lateral temporal VOI for all tested software tools (r=0.82 to r=0.95, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Automated VOI definition by the software tools tested has a great potential to substitute for the current standard procedure to manually define VOIs in β-amyloid PET data analysis.
INTRODUCTION: For regional quantification of nuclear brain imaging data, defining volumes of interest (VOIs) by hand is still the gold standard. As this procedure is time-consuming and operator-dependent, a variety of software tools for automated identification of neuroanatomical structures were developed. As the quality and performance of those tools are poorly investigated so far in analyzing amyloid PET data, we compared in this project four algorithms for automated VOI definition (HERMES Brass, two PMOD approaches, and FreeSurfer) against the conventional method. We systematically analyzed florbetaben brain PET and MRI data of ten patients with probable Alzheimer's dementia (AD) and ten age-matched healthy controls (HCs) collected in a previous clinical study. METHODS: VOIs were manually defined on the data as well as through the four automated workflows. Standardized uptake value ratios (SUVRs) with the cerebellar cortex as a reference region were obtained for each VOI. SUVR comparisons between ADs and HCs were carried out using Mann-Whitney-U tests, and effect sizes (Cohen's d) were calculated. SUVRs of automatically generated VOIs were correlated with SUVRs of conventionally derived VOIs (Pearson's tests). RESULTS: The composite neocortex SUVRs obtained by manually defined VOIs were significantly higher for ADs vs. HCs (p=0.010, d=1.53). This was also the case for the four tested automated approaches which achieved effect sizes of d=1.38 to d=1.62. SUVRs of automatically generated VOIs correlated significantly with those of the hand-drawn VOIs in a number of brain regions, with regional differences in the degree of these correlations. Best overall correlation was observed in the lateral temporal VOI for all tested software tools (r=0.82 to r=0.95, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Automated VOI definition by the software tools tested has a great potential to substitute for the current standard procedure to manually define VOIs in β-amyloid PET data analysis.
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: Sargo Aalto; Noora M Scheinin; Nina M Kemppainen; Kjell Någren; Marita Kailajärvi; Mika Leinonen; Mika Scheinin; Juha O Rinne Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2009-06-04 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Henryk Barthel; Julia Luthardt; Georg Becker; Marianne Patt; Eva Hammerstein; Kristin Hartwig; Birk Eggers; Bernhard Sattler; Andreas Schildan; Swen Hesse; Philipp M Meyer; Henrike Wolf; Torsten Zimmermann; Joachim Reischl; Beate Rohde; Hermann-Josef Gertz; Cornelia Reininger; Osama Sabri Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-05-06 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: J Barnes; J Foster; R G Boyes; T Pepple; E K Moore; J M Schott; C Frost; R I Scahill; N C Fox Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2008-01-26 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Fabio Raman; Sameera Grandhi; Charles F Murchison; Richard E Kennedy; Susan Landau; Erik D Roberson; Jonathan McConathy Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2019 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Santiago Bullich; John Seibyl; Ana M Catafau; Aleksandar Jovalekic; Norman Koglin; Henryk Barthel; Osama Sabri; Susan De Santi Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2017-05-13 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Fermín Segovia; Raquel Sánchez-Vañó; Juan M Górriz; Javier Ramírez; Pablo Sopena-Novales; Nathalie Testart Dardel; Antonio Rodríguez-Fernández; Manuel Gómez-Río Journal: Front Aging Neurosci Date: 2018-06-07 Impact factor: 5.750