Physica Medica: European Journal of Medical Physics
Volume 27, Issue 1 , Pages 44-51 , January 2011

Influence of different contributions of scatter and attenuation on the threshold values in contrast-based algorithms for volume segmentation

  • Roberta Matheoud

      Affiliations

    • Department of Medical Physics, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria “Maggiore della Carità”, Novara, Italy
    • ,
  • Patrizia Della Monica

      Affiliations

    • Department of Medical Physics, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria “Maggiore della Carità”, Novara, Italy
    • ,
  • Chiara Secco

      Affiliations

    • Department of Medical Physics, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria “Maggiore della Carità”, Novara, Italy
    • ,
  • Gianfranco Loi

      Affiliations

    • Department of Medical Physics, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria “Maggiore della Carità”, Novara, Italy
    • ,
  • Marco Krengli

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiotherapy, University of Piemonte Orientale, Novara, Italy
    • ,
  • Eugenio Inglese

      Affiliations

    • Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Piemonte Orientale, Novara, Italy
    • ,
  • Marco Brambilla

      Affiliations

    • Department of Medical Physics, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria “Maggiore della Carità”, Novara, Italy
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +39 321 3733369; fax: +39 321 3733327.

Received 16 September 2009 ,Revised 13 January 2010 ,Accepted 27 February 2010.

References 

  1. Nestle U, Weber W, Hentschel M, Grosu AL. Biological imaging in radiation therapy: role of positron emission tomography. Phys Med Biol. 2009;54:R1–R25
  2. Riegel AC, Berson AM, Destian S, et al. Variability of gross tumor volume delineation in head-and-neck cancer using ct and PET/CT fusion. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;65:726–732
  3. Nestle U, Kremp S, Schaefer-Schuler A, et al. Comparison of different methods for delineation of 18F-FDG PET-positive tissue for target volume definition in radiotherapy of patients with non-Small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:1342–1348
  4. Black QC, Grills IS, Kestin LL, et al. Defining a radiotherapy target with positron emission tomography. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;60:1272–1282
  5. Erdi YE, Mawlawi O, Larson SM, et al. Segmentation of lung lesion volume by adaptive positron emission tomography image thresholding. Cancer. 1997;80:2505–2509
  6. Bayne M, MacManus M, Hicks R, Leong T, Peters L, Ball D. Can a mathematical formula help define a radiation target volume using positron emission tomography? In regard to Black et al. 2004. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;62:299–300
  7. Daisne JF, Sibomana M, Bol A, Doumont T, Lonneux M, Gregoire V. Tri-dimensional automatic segmentation of PET volumes based on measured source-to-background ratios, influence of reconstruction algorithms. Radiother Oncol. 2003;69:247–250
  8. Davies JB, Reiner B, Huser M, Burger C, Szekely G, Ciernik IF. Assessment of 18F PET signals for automatic target volume definition in radiotherapy treatment planning. Radiother Oncol. 2006;80:43–50
  9. Jentzen W, Freudenberg L, Einsing EG, Heinze M, Brandau W, Bockisch A. Segmentation of PET volumes by iterative image thresholding. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:108–114
  10. Daisne JF, Duprez T, Weynand B, et al. Tumor volume in pharyngolaryngeal squamous cell carcinoma: comparison at CT, MR imaging, and FDG PET and validation with surgical specimen. Radiology. 2004;233:93–100
  11. Schaefer Kremp S, Hellwig D, Rube C, Kirsch CM, Nestle U. A contrast-oriented algorithm for FDG-PET-based delineation of tumour volumes for the radiotherapy of the lung cancer: derivation from phantom measurements and validation in patient data. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:1989–1999
  12. Geets X, Lee JA, Bol A, Lonneux M, Gregoire V. A gradient-base method for segmenting FDG-PET images: methodology and validation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:1427–1438
  13. Hatt M, Lamare F, Boussion N, et al. Fuzzy hidden Markov chains segmentation for volume determination and quantitation in PET. Phys Med Biol. 2007;52:3467–3491
  14. Brambilla M, Matheoud R, Secco C, Loi G, Krengli M, Inglese E. Threshold segmentation for PET target volume delineation in radiation treatment planning: the role of target-to-background ratio and target size. Med Phys. 2008;35:1207–1213
  15. Ford EC, Kinahan PE, Hanlon L, et al. Tumor delineation using PET in head and neck cancers: threshold contouring and lesion volumes. Med Phys. 2006;33:4280–4288
  16. Drever L, Roa W, McEwan A, Robinson D. Iterative threshold segmentation for PET target volume delineation. Med Phys. 2007;34:1253–1265
  17. Kinahan PE, Townsend DW, Beyer T, Sashin D. Attenuation correction for a combined PET/CT scanner. Med Phys. 1998;25:2046–2053
  18. Vandervoort E, Sossi V. An analytical scatter correction for singles-mode transmission data in PET. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2008;27:402–441
  19. Barret O, Carpenter TA, Clark JC, Ansorge RE, Fryer TD. Monte Carlo simulation and scatter correction of the GE advance PET scanner with SimSET and Geant4. Phys Med Biol. 2005;50:4823–4840
  20. Karp JS, Muehllehner G, Mankoff DA, et al. Continuous-slice PENN-PET: a positron tomograph with volume imaging capability. J Nucl Med. 1990;31:617–627
  21. National Electrical Manufacturers Association . NEMA standards publication NU-2–2001: performance measurements of positron emission tomographs. Rosslyn (VA): NEMA; 2001;
  22. Erdi YE, Nehmeh SA, Mulnix T, Humm J, Watson CC. PET performance measurements for an LSO-based combined PET/TC scanner using the national electrical manufacturers association NU 2-2001 standard. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:813–821
  23. Brambilla M, Secco C, Dominietto M, Matheoud R, Sacchetti G, Inglese E. Performance characteristics obtained for a new 3-dimensional lutetium oxyorthosilicate–based whole-body PET/CT scanner with the National Electrical Manufacturers Association NU 2-2001 Standard. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:2083–2091
  24. Bettinardi V, Danna M, Savi A, et al. Performance evaluation of the new whole-body PET/CT scanner: discovery ST. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:867–881
  25. Bergmann H, Dobrozemsky G, Minear G, Nicoletti R, Samal M. An inter-laboratory comparison study of image quality of PET scanners using the NEMA NU 2-2001 procedure for assessment of image quality. Phys Med Biol. 2005;50:2193–2207
  26. Brambilla M, Matheoud R, Secco C, et al. Impact of target-to-background ratio, target size, emission scan duration and activity on physical figures of merit for a 3D LSO-based whole body PET/CT scanner. Med Phys. 2007;34:3854–3865
  27. Watson CC, Casey ME, Bendriem B, et al. Optimizing injected dose in clinical PET by accurately modelling the counting-rate response function specific to individual patient scan. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:1825–1834
  28. Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Muller KE. Applied regression analysis and other multivariable methods. Boston (Massachussets): PWS-Kent; 1987;
  29. Geworski L, Knoop BO, de Cabrejas ML, Knapp WH, Munz DL. Recovery correction for quantitation in emission tomography: a feasibility study. Eur J Nucl Med. 2000;27:161–169

PII: S1120-1797(10)00023-2

doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2010.02.003

Physica Medica: European Journal of Medical Physics
Volume 27, Issue 1 , Pages 44-51 , January 2011

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution