[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Development of anatomically and lesion contrast-guided partial volume correction: new 3D formalisms and validation in phantom and clinical studies

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Nuclear Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of the study was to correct for partial volume effect in positron emission imaging studies which is the most influential factors using three-dimensional (3D) representation of the recovery coefficients (RCs) to improve standardized uptake value (SUV) calculations.

Methods

Several phantom studies were conducted at significantly wide range of lesion contrast, range 2:1 up to 15:1. It was then classified into two groups: one for generating 3D function taking into consideration the sphere size as well lesion contrast whereas the other group was used for functions validation. A segmentation threshold algorithm for lesion delineation and volume determination was generated based on lesion contrast and lesion size. In addition, five 3D functions of the RC of the SUV were formulated considering lesion size and lesion contrast. Validation of the new algorithms has considered both phantom and clinical studies.

Results

The error in threshold 3D function was well below 10%. For lesions ≤ 2 cm in diameter, there was no statistical difference of the functions developed for SUVmax as well as those functions generated for SUVmean. However, the median SUVmax has increased significantly when compared with data before correction. For SUVmean, the increase in median value was also significantly high.

Conclusion

It has been successful to generate 3D mathematical formulations of the SUV RC taking into consideration the most influential factors including lesion size and lesion contrast. Validation studies were suggestive of the good performance of the new mathematical algorithms generated to correct for PVE. However, further studies are underway to ensure the performance of the proposed algorithms in clinical PET studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
£29.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Khalil MM. Basics and advances of quantitative PET imaging. In: Khalil MM, editor. Basic science of PET imaging. Cham: Springer Publishing; 2017.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Huang SC. Anatomy of SUV. Standardized uptake value. Nucl Med Biol. 2000;27:643–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Keyes JW Jr. SUV: standard uptake or silly useless value? J Nucl Med. 1995;36:1836–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(Suppl 1):11S–20S.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Soret M, Bacharach SL, Buvat I. Partial-volume effect in PET tumor imaging. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:932–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Anouan KJ, Lelandais B, Edet-Sanson A, et al. 18F-FDG-PET partial volume effect correction using a modified recovery coefficient approach based on functional volume and local contrast: physical validation and clinical feasibility in oncology. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;61:301–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kirov AS, Piao JZ, Schmidtlein CR. Partial volume effect correction in PET using regularized iterative deconvolution with variance control based on local topology. Phys Med Biol. 2008;53:2577–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Srinivas SM, Dhurairaj T, Basu S, et al. A recovery coefficient method for partial volume correction of PET images. Ann Nucl Med. 2009;23:341–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tohka J, Reilhac A. Deconvolution-based partial volume correction in Raclopride-PET and Monte Carlo comparison to MR-based method. Neuroimage. 2008;39:1570–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Boussion N, Le Rest CC, Hatt M, Visvikis D. Incorporation of wavelet-based denoising in iterative deconvolution for partial volume correction in whole-body PET imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:1064–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Erlandsson K, Buvat I, Pretorius PH, Thomas BA, Hutton BF. A review of partial volume correction techniques for emission tomography and their applications in neurology, cardiology and oncology. Phys Med Biol. 2012;57:R119–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Erlandsson K, Dickson J, Arridge S, et al. MR imaging-guided partial volume correction of PET data in PET/MR imaging. PET Clin. 2016;11:161–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wang W, Hu Z, Gagnon D. A new component approach to efficiency normalization for 3D PET. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2007;54(1):92–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Popescu LM, Matej S, Lewitt RM. Iterative image reconstruction using geometrically ordered subsets with list-mode data. Nucl Sci Symp Conf Rec IEEE. 2004;6:3536–40.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Casey ME, Hoffman EJ. A technique to reduce noise in accidental coincidence measurements and coincidence efficiency calibration. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1986;10(6):845–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kolthammer JA, Su KH, Grover A, et al. Performance evaluation of the ingenuity TF PET/CT scanner with a focus on high count-rate conditions. Phys Med Biol. 2014;59:3843–59.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. https://threedify.com/free-excel-3d-add-trial/. Accessed May 2018.

  18. Hoetjes NJ, van Velden FH, Hoekstra OS, et al. Partial volume correction strategies for quantitative FDG PET in oncology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:1679–87.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Cysouw MCF, Kramer GM, Schoonmade LJ, et al. Impact of partial-volume correction in oncological PET studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:2105–16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Tsujikawa T, Otsuka H, Morita N, et al. Does partial volume corrected maximum SUV based on count recovery coefficient in 3D-PET/CT correlate with clinical aggressiveness of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma? Ann Nucl Med. 2008;22:23–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cheebsumon P, Boellaard R, de Ruysscher D, et al. Assessment of tumour size in PET/CT lung cancer studies: PET- and CT-based methods compared to pathology. EJNMMI Res. 2012;2:56.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Erdi YE, Mawlawi O, Larson SM, et al. Segmentation of lung lesion volume by adaptive positron emission tomography image thresholding. Cancer. 1997;80:2505–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Zaidi H, El Naqa I. PET-guided delineation of radiation therapy treatment volumes: a survey of image segmentation techniques. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:2165–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Schaefer A, Kremp S, Hellwig D, et al. A contrast-oriented algorithm for FDG-PET-based delineation of tumour volumes for the radiotherapy of lung cancer: derivation from phantom measurements and validation in patient data. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:1989–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Boellaard R, Krak NC, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA. Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1519–27.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Cottereau AS, Hapdey S, Chartier L, et al. Baseline total metabolic tumor volume measured with fixed or different adaptive thresholding methods equally predicts outcome in peripheral T cell lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 2017;58:276–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kasr Al-Ainy Center for Radiation Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, Cairo University Hospitals, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo, Egypt

    Hesham Abdel Gawad

  2. Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt

    Magdy M. Khalil & Medhat W. Shafaa

  3. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University Hospitals, Cairo, Egypt

    Shaban Al Ramlawy

Authors
  1. Hesham Abdel Gawad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Magdy M. Khalil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Medhat W. Shafaa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shaban Al Ramlawy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Magdy M. Khalil.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abdel Gawad, H., Khalil, M.M., W. Shafaa, M. et al. Development of anatomically and lesion contrast-guided partial volume correction: new 3D formalisms and validation in phantom and clinical studies. Ann Nucl Med 33, 481–494 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-019-01356-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-019-01356-7

Keywords