Hongyoon Choi1, Dong Soo Lee. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
Structural MR images concomitantly acquired with PET images can provide crucial anatomic information for precise quantitative analysis. However, in the clinical setting, not all the subjects have corresponding MR images. Here, we developed a model to generate structural MR images from amyloid PET using deep generative networks. We applied our model to quantification of cortical amyloid load without structural MR. Methods: We used florbetapir PET and structural MR data from the Alzheimer Disease Neuroimaging Initiative database. The generative network was trained to generate realistic structural MR images from florbetapir PET images. After the training, the model was applied to the quantification of cortical amyloid load. PET images were spatially normalized to the template space using the generated MR, and then SUV ratio (SUVR) of the target regions was measured by predefined regions of interest. A real MR-based quantification was used as the gold standard to measure the accuracy of our approach. Other MR-less methods-a normal PET template-based, a multiatlas PET template-based, and a PET segmentation-based normalization/quantification-were also tested. We compared the performance of quantification methods using generated MR with that of MR-based and MR-less quantification methods. Results: Generated MR images from florbetapir PET showed signal patterns that were visually similar to the real MR. The structural similarity index between real and generated MR was 0.91 ± 0.04. The mean absolute error of SUVR of cortical composite regions estimated by the generated MR-based method was 0.04 ± 0.03, which was significantly smaller than other MR-less methods (0.29 ± 0.12 for the normal PET template, 0.12 ± 0.07 for the multiatlas PET template, and 0.08 ± 0.06 for the PET segmentation-based methods). Bland-Altman plots revealed that the generated MR-based SUVR quantification was the closest to the SUVRs estimated by the real MR-based method. Conclusion: Structural MR images were successfully generated from amyloid PET images using deep generative networks. Generated MR images could be used as templates for accurate and precise amyloid quantification. This generative method might be used to generate multimodal images of various organs for further quantitative analyses.
Structural MR images concomitantly acquired with PET images can provide crucial anatomic information for precise quantitative analysis. However, in the clinical setting, not all the subjects have corresponding MR images. Here, we developed a model to generate structural MR images from amyloid PET using deep generative networks. We applied our model to quantification of cortical amyloid load without structural MR. Methods: We used florbetapir PET and structural MR data from the Alzheimer Disease Neuroimaging Initiative database. The generative network was trained to generate realistic structural MR images from florbetapir PET images. After the training, the model was applied to the quantification of cortical amyloid load. PET images were spatially normalized to the template space using the generated MR, and then SUV ratio (SUVR) of the target regions was measured by predefined regions of interest. A real MR-based quantification was used as the gold standard to measure the accuracy of our approach. Other MR-less methods-a normal PET template-based, a multiatlas PET template-based, and a PET segmentation-based normalization/quantification-were also tested. We compared the performance of quantification methods using generated MR with that of MR-based and MR-less quantification methods. Results: Generated MR images from florbetapir PET showed signal patterns that were visually similar to the real MR. The structural similarity index between real and generated MR was 0.91 ± 0.04. The mean absolute error of SUVR of cortical composite regions estimated by the generated MR-based method was 0.04 ± 0.03, which was significantly smaller than other MR-less methods (0.29 ± 0.12 for the normal PET template, 0.12 ± 0.07 for the multiatlas PET template, and 0.08 ± 0.06 for the PET segmentation-based methods). Bland-Altman plots revealed that the generated MR-based SUVR quantification was the closest to the SUVRs estimated by the real MR-based method. Conclusion: Structural MR images were successfully generated from amyloid PET images using deep generative networks. Generated MR images could be used as templates for accurate and precise amyloid quantification. This generative method might be used to generate multimodal images of various organs for further quantitative analyses.
Authors: Susan M Landau; Christopher Breault; Abhinay D Joshi; Michael Pontecorvo; Chester A Mathis; William J Jagust; Mark A Mintun Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-11-19 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Adam S Fleisher; Kewei Chen; Xiaofen Liu; Auttawut Roontiva; Pradeep Thiyyagura; Napatkamon Ayutyanont; Abhinay D Joshi; Christopher M Clark; Mark A Mintun; Michael J Pontecorvo; P Murali Doraiswamy; Keith A Johnson; Daniel M Skovronsky; Eric M Reiman Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2011-07-11
Authors: Roger Lundqvist; Johan Lilja; Benjamin A Thomas; Jyrki Lötjönen; Victor L Villemagne; Christopher C Rowe; Lennart Thurfjell Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2013-06-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: William J Jagust; Susan M Landau; Robert A Koeppe; Eric M Reiman; Kewei Chen; Chester A Mathis; Julie C Price; Norman L Foster; Angela Y Wang Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Christopher M Clark; Julie A Schneider; Barry J Bedell; Thomas G Beach; Warren B Bilker; Mark A Mintun; Michael J Pontecorvo; Franz Hefti; Alan P Carpenter; Matthew L Flitter; Michael J Krautkramer; Hank F Kung; R Edward Coleman; P Murali Doraiswamy; Adam S Fleisher; Marwan N Sabbagh; Carl H Sadowsky; Eric P Reiman; P Eric M Reiman; Simone P Zehntner; Daniel M Skovronsky Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-01-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Aurélie Kas; Pierre Payoux; Marie-Odile Habert; Zoulikha Malek; Yann Cointepas; Georges El Fakhri; Philippe Chaumet-Riffaud; Emmanuel Itti; Philippe Remy Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-08-17 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jin Su Kim; Hanna Cho; Jae Yong Choi; Seung Ha Lee; Young Hoon Ryu; Chul Hyoung Lyoo; Myung Sik Lee Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Luping Zhou; Olivier Salvado; Vincent Dore; Pierrick Bourgeat; Parnesh Raniga; S Lance Macaulay; David Ames; Colin L Masters; Kathryn A Ellis; Victor L Villemagne; Christopher C Rowe; Jurgen Fripp Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-01-10 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sandhitsu R Das; Xueying Lyu; Michael Tran Duong; Long Xie; Lauren McCollum; Robin de Flores; Michael DiCalogero; David J Irwin; Bradford C Dickerson; Ilya M Nasrallah; Paul A Yushkevich; David A Wolk Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2021-10-15 Impact factor: 10.422