Variational PET/CT Tumor Co-segmentation Integrated with PET Restoration.

PET and CT are widely used imaging modalities in radiation oncology. PET imaging has a high contrast but blurry tumor edges due to its limited spatial resolution, while CT imaging has a high resolution but a low contrast between tumor and soft normal tissues. Tumor segmentation from either a single PET or CT image is difficult. It is known that co-segmentation methods utilizing the complementary information between PET and CT can improve segmentation accuracy. These information can be either consistent or inconsistent in the image-level. How to correctly localize tumor edges with these inconsistent information is a major challenge for co-segmentation methods. In this study, we proposed a novel variational method for tumor co-segmentation in PET/CT, with a fusion strategy specifically designed to handle the information inconsistency between PET and CT in an adaptive way - the method can automatically decide which modality should be more trustful when PET and CT disagree to each other for localizing the tumor boundary. The proposed method was constructed based on the Γ-convergence approximation of the Mumford-Shah (MS) segmentation model. A PET restoration process was integrated into the co-segmentation process, which further eliminate the uncertainty for tumor segmentation introduced by the blurring of tumor edges in PET. The performance of the proposed method was validated on a test dataset with fifty non-small cell lung cancer patients. Experimental results demonstrated that the proposed method had a high accuracy for PET/CT co-segmentation and PET restoration, and can accurately estimate the blur kernel of the PET scanner as well. For those complex images in which the tumors exhibit Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake inhomogeneity or even invade adjacent soft normal tissues, the proposed method can still accurately segment the tumors. It achieved an average dice similarity indexes (DSI) of 0.85 ± 0.06, volume error (VE) of 0.09 ± 0.08, and classification error (CE) of 0.31 ± 0.13.