UZH-Logo

18F-FDG-PET and MRI in patients with malignancies of the liver and pancreas. Accuracy of retrospective multimodality image registration by using the CT-component of PET/CT


Donati, O F; Reiner, C S; Hany, T F; Fornaro, J; von Schulthess, G K; Marincek, B; Weishaupt, D (2010). 18F-FDG-PET and MRI in patients with malignancies of the liver and pancreas. Accuracy of retrospective multimodality image registration by using the CT-component of PET/CT. Nuklearmedizin, 49(3):106-14.

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of retrospective rigid image registration and fusion between F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the upper abdomen. Patients, material, methods: Image fusion of PET and MRI was performed in 30 patients with suspected malignancy of the liver or pancreas. Using a commercially available image fusion tool capable of rigid manual point-based registration, PET-Images were retrospectively registered and fused by matching eight homologous points in the 3D spoiled gradient echo (GRE) MRI sequences acquired in portal venous phase and in the CT-component of PET/CT. Two separate observers (R1, R2) assessed accuracy of image registration by determining the distances in the x-, y- and z-axis as well as the absolute distance between anatomical landmarks which differed from the landmarks chosen for registration. Quality of fusion was graded using a three point grading scale (1 poorly fused; 2 satisfactory fused; 3 correctly fused) and compared to hybrid PET/CT fusion. Results: Mean time of registration per patient was less than 2 minutes. Objective registration assessment showed errors between 2.4-6.3 mm in x-axis: mean 3.6 mm (R1); 4.6 mm (R2), 2.3-9.3 mm in y-axis (mean 5.1 mm; 5.5 mm) and 3.3-12.0 mm in z-axis (mean 5.9 mm; 5.9 mm.) The mean error in absolute distance between points was 6.0-16.8 mm (mean 9.9 mm; 10.6 mm). In visual assessment, most fusions were graded to be satisfactory or correctly fused: R1, R2: grade 3, 11/30 (36.7%), 22/30 (73.3%); grade 2, 13/30 (43.3%), 8/30 (26.7%); grade 1, 6/30 (20%), 0/30 (0%). Fusions were mostly comparable to hybrid PET/CT fusions. All of the fusions were defined as diagnostically relevant by both observers. Conclusion: Retrospective rigid image fusion of FDG-PET and MRI of the upper abdomen using the CT-component of PET/CT for registration is feasible without adaptation in image acquisition protocols and shows sub-centimeter registration errors in most cases.

Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of retrospective rigid image registration and fusion between F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the upper abdomen. Patients, material, methods: Image fusion of PET and MRI was performed in 30 patients with suspected malignancy of the liver or pancreas. Using a commercially available image fusion tool capable of rigid manual point-based registration, PET-Images were retrospectively registered and fused by matching eight homologous points in the 3D spoiled gradient echo (GRE) MRI sequences acquired in portal venous phase and in the CT-component of PET/CT. Two separate observers (R1, R2) assessed accuracy of image registration by determining the distances in the x-, y- and z-axis as well as the absolute distance between anatomical landmarks which differed from the landmarks chosen for registration. Quality of fusion was graded using a three point grading scale (1 poorly fused; 2 satisfactory fused; 3 correctly fused) and compared to hybrid PET/CT fusion. Results: Mean time of registration per patient was less than 2 minutes. Objective registration assessment showed errors between 2.4-6.3 mm in x-axis: mean 3.6 mm (R1); 4.6 mm (R2), 2.3-9.3 mm in y-axis (mean 5.1 mm; 5.5 mm) and 3.3-12.0 mm in z-axis (mean 5.9 mm; 5.9 mm.) The mean error in absolute distance between points was 6.0-16.8 mm (mean 9.9 mm; 10.6 mm). In visual assessment, most fusions were graded to be satisfactory or correctly fused: R1, R2: grade 3, 11/30 (36.7%), 22/30 (73.3%); grade 2, 13/30 (43.3%), 8/30 (26.7%); grade 1, 6/30 (20%), 0/30 (0%). Fusions were mostly comparable to hybrid PET/CT fusions. All of the fusions were defined as diagnostically relevant by both observers. Conclusion: Retrospective rigid image fusion of FDG-PET and MRI of the upper abdomen using the CT-component of PET/CT for registration is feasible without adaptation in image acquisition protocols and shows sub-centimeter registration errors in most cases.

Citations

9 citations in Web of Science®
10 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

56 downloads since deposited on 10 Jun 2010
19 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Clinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology
04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Clinic for Nuclear Medicine
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:2010
Deposited On:10 Jun 2010 12:03
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 14:10
Publisher:Schattauer
ISSN:0029-5566
Publisher DOI:10.3413/nukmed-0263
PubMed ID:20407733
Permanent URL: http://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-34543

Download

[img]
Preview
Filetype: PDF
Size: 2MB
View at publisher

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations