Partial volume correction strategies for quantitative FDG PET in oncology
Quantitative accuracy of positron emission tomography (PET) is affected by partial volume effects resulting in increased underestimation of the standardized uptake value (SUV) with decreasing tumour volume. The purpose of the present study was to assess accuracy and precision of different partial volume correction (PVC) methods.
Three methods for PVC were evaluated: (1) inclusion of the point spread function (PSF) within the reconstruction, (2) iterative deconvolution of PET images and (3) calculation of spill-in and spill-out factors based on tumour masks. Simulations were based on a mathematical phantom with tumours of different sizes and shapes. Phantom experiments were performed in 2-D mode using the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) NU2 image quality phantom containing six differently sized spheres. Clinical studies (2-D mode) included a test-retest study consisting of 10 patients with stage IIIB and IV non-small cell lung cancer and a response monitoring study consisting of 15 female breast cancer patients. In all studies tumour or sphere volumes of interest (VOI) were generated using VOI based on adaptive relative thresholds.
Simulations and experiments provided similar results. All methods were able to accurately recover true SUV within 10% for spheres equal to and larger than 1 ml. Reconstruction-based recovery, however, provided up to twofold better precision than image-based methods. Clinical studies showed that PVC increased SUV by 5–80% depending on tumour size. Test-retest variability slightly worsened from 9.8 ± 6.5 without to 10.8 ± 7.9% with PVC. Finally, PVC resulted in slightly smaller SUV responses, i.e. from −30.5% without to −26.3% with PVC after the first cycle of treatment (p < 0.01).
PVC improves accuracy of SUV without decreasing (clinical) test-retest variability significantly and it has a small, but significant effect on observed tumour responses. Reconstruction-based PVC outperforms image-based methods, but requires dedicated reconstruction software. Image-based methods are good alternatives because of their ease of implementation and their similar performance in clinical studies.
- Hoekstra CJ, Paglianiti I, Hoekstra OS, Smit EF, Postmus PE, Teule GJ, et al. Monitoring response to therapy in cancer using [18F]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose and positron emission tomography: an overview of different analytical methods. Eur J Nucl Med 2000;27(6):731–43. CrossRef
- Graham MM, Peterson LM, Hayward RM. Comparison of simplified quantitative analyses of FDG uptake. Nucl Med Biol 2000;27(7):647–55. CrossRef
- Lowe VJ, DeLong DM, Hoffman JM, Coleman RE. Optimum scanning protocol for FDG-PET evaluation of pulmonary malignancy. J Nucl Med 1995;36(5):883–7.
- 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(9):1519–27.
- Soret M, Bacharach SL, Buvat I. Partial-volume effect in PET tumor imaging. J Nucl Med 2007;48(6):932–45. CrossRef
- 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(2):161–9. CrossRef
- Hoffman EJ, Huang SC, Phelps ME. Quantitation in positron emission computed tomography: 1. Effect of object size. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1979;3(3):299–308. CrossRef
- Aston JA, Cunningham VJ, Asselin MC, Hammers A, Evans AC, Gunn RN. Positron emission tomography partial volume correction: estimation and algorithms. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2002;22(8):1019–34. CrossRef
- Boussion N, Hatt M, Lamare F, Bizais Y, Turzo A, Cheze-Le Rest C, et al. A multiresolution image based approach for correction of partial volume effects in emission tomography. Phys Med Biol 2006;51(7):1857–76. CrossRef
- Hickeson M, Yun M, Matthies A, Zhuang H, Adam LE, Lacorte L, et al. Use of a corrected standardized uptake value based on the lesion size on CT permits accurate characterization of lung nodules on FDG-PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002;29(12):1639–47. CrossRef
- Baete K, Nuyts J, Van Laere K, Van Paesschen W, Ceyssens S, De Ceuninck L, et al. Evaluation of anatomy based reconstruction for partial volume correction in brain FDG-PET. Neuroimage 2004;23(1):305–17. CrossRef
- Erlandsson K, Wong AT, van Heertum R, Mann JJ, Parsey RV. An improved method for voxel-based partial volume correction in PET and SPECT. Neuroimage 2006;31:T84. CrossRef
- Meltzer CC, Leal JP, Mayberg HS, Wagner Jr HN, Frost JJ. Correction of PET data for partial volume effects in human cerebral cortex by MR imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1990;14(4):561–70. CrossRef
- Müller-Gärtner HW, Links JM, Prince JL, Bryan RN, McVeigh E, Leal JP, et al. Measurement of radiotracer concentration in brain gray matter using positron emission tomography: MRI-based correction for partial volume effects. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 1992;12(4):571–83.
- Frouin V, Comtat C, Reilhac A, Grégoire MC. Correction of partial-volume effect for PET striatal imaging: fast implementation and study of robustness. J Nucl Med 2002;43(12):1715–26.
- Rousset OG, Ma Y, Evans AC. Correction for partial volume effects in PET: principle and validation. J Nucl Med 1998;39(5):904–11.
- Teo BK, Seo Y, Bacharach SL, Carrasquillo JA, Libutti SK, Shukla H, et al. Partial-volume correction in PET: validation of an iterative postreconstruction method with phantom and patient data. J Nucl Med 2007;48(5):802–10.
- Jones DR, Parker Jr LA, Detterbeck FC, Egan TM. Inadequacy of computed tomography in assessing patients with esophageal carcinoma after induction chemoradiotherapy. Cancer 1999;85(5):1026–32. CrossRef
- Kitagawa Y, Nishizawa S, Sano K, Ogasawara T, Nakamura M, Sadato N, et al. Prospective comparison of 18F-FDG PET with conventional imaging modalities (MRI, CT, and 67Ga scintigraphy) in assessment of combined intraarterial chemotherapy and radiotherapy for head and neck carcinoma. J Nucl Med 2003;44(2):198–206.
- Pottgen C, Gauler T, Krbek T, Kuhl H, Stergar H, Gohlert A, et al. F-18-FDG-PET/CT-progress examinations in a prospective phase-III protocol—a successful selection instrument for definitive radiochemotherapy in patients with locally advanced NSCLC? Strahlenther Onkol 2006;182:111–2.
- Vesselle H, Schmidt RA, Pugsley JM, Li M, Kohlmyer SG, Vallieres E, et al. Lung cancer proliferation correlates with [F-18]fluorodeoxyglucose uptake by positron emission tomography. Clin Cancer Res 2000;6(10):3837–44.
- Brix G, Doll J, Bellemann ME, Trojan H, Haberkorn U, Schmidlin P, et al. Use of scanner characteristics in iterative image reconstruction for high-resolution positron emission tomography studies of small animals. Eur J Nucl Med 1997;24(7):779–86.
- Reader AJ, Julyan PJ, Williams H, Hastings DL, Zweit J. EM algorithm system modeling by image-space techniques for PET reconstruction. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 2003;50(5):1392–7. CrossRef
- Mourik JE, Lubberink M, Klumpers UM, Comans EF, Lammertsma AA, Boellaard R. Partial volume corrected image derived input functions for dynamic PET brain studies: methodology and validation for [11C]flumazenil. Neuroimage 2008;39(3):1041–50. CrossRef
- Tohka J, Reilhac A. Deconvolution-based partial volume correction in Raclopride-PET and Monte Carlo comparison to MR-based method. Neuroimage 2008;39(4):1570–84. CrossRef
- Hudson HM, Larkin RS. Accelerated image reconstruction using ordered subsets of projection data. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1994;13:601–9. CrossRef
- Brix G, Zaers J, Adam LE, Bellemann ME, Ostertag H, Trojan H, et al. Performance evaluation of a whole-body PET scanner using the NEMA protocol. National Electrical Manufacturers Association. J Nucl Med 1997;38(10):1614–23.
- Hoekstra CJ, Hoekstra OS, Stroobants SG, Smit EF, Lammertsma AA. A comparison of different analytical methods for response monitoring in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) using FDG PET. J Nucl Med 1999;40(5):140P.
- Krak NC, Boellaard R, Hoekstra OS, Twisk JW, Hoekstra CJ, Lammertsma AA. Effects of ROI definition and reconstruction method on quantitative outcome and applicability in a response monitoring trial. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005;32(3):294–301. CrossRef
- Westerterp M, Pruim J, Oyen W, Hoekstra O, Paans A, Visser E, et al. Quantification of FDG PET studies using standardised uptake values in multi-centre trials: effects of image reconstruction, resolution and ROI definition parameters. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34:392–404. CrossRef
- Erdi YE, Mawlawi O, Larson SM, Imbriaco M, Yeung H, Finn R, et al. Segmentation of lung lesion volume by adaptive positron emission tomography image thresholding. Cancer 1997;80(12 Suppl):2505–9. CrossRef
- Caldwell CB, Mah K, Ung YC, Danjoux CE, Balogh JM, Ganguli SN, et al. Observer variation in contouring gross tumor volume in patients with poorly defined non-small-cell lung tumors on CT: the impact of (18)FDG-hybrid PET fusion. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001;51(4):923–31.
- Nehmeh SA, Erdi YE, Ling CC, Rosenzweig KE, Squire OD, Braban LE, et al. Effect of respiratory gating on reducing lung motion artifacts in PET imaging of lung cancer. Med Phys 2002;29(3):366–71. CrossRef
- Remeijer P, Rasch C, Lebesque JV, van Herk M. A general methodology for three-dimensional analysis of variation in target volume delineation. Med Phys 1999;26(6):931–40. CrossRef
- Steenbakkers RJHM, Duppen JC, Fitton I, Deurloo KEI, Zijp L, Uitterhoeve ALJ, et al. Observer variation in target volume delineation of lung cancer related to radiation oncologist-computer interaction: a ‘Big Brother’ evaluation. Radiother Oncol 2005;77(2):182–90. CrossRef
- Lavely WC, Scarfone C, Cevikalp H, Li R, Byrne DW, Cmelak AJ, et al. Phantom validation of coregistration of PET and CT for image-guided radiotherapy. Med Phys 2004;31(5):1083–92. CrossRef
- Nömayr A, Römer W, Hothorn T, Pfahlberg A, Hornegger J, Bautz W, et al. Anatomical accuracy of lesion localization. Retrospective interactive rigid image registration between 18F-FDG-PET and X-ray CT. Nuklearmedizin 2005;44(4):149–55. German.
- Hatt M, Cheze le Rest C, Turzo A, Roux C, Visvikis D. A fuzzy locally adaptive Bayesian segmentation approach for volume determination in PET. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2009;28(6):881–93. CrossRef
- Nehmeh SA, Erdi YE, Ling CC, Rosenzweig KE, Schoder H, Larson SM, et al. Effect of respiratory gating on quantifying PET images of lung cancer. J Nucl Med 2002;43(7):876–81.
- Partial volume correction strategies for quantitative FDG PET in oncology
- Open Access
- Available under Open Access This content is freely available online to anyone, anywhere at any time.
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
Volume 37, Issue 9 , pp 1679-1687
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- Partial volume correction
- Positron emission tomography (PET)
- Standardized uptake value (SUV)
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine & PET Research, VU University Medical Center, P.O. Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, Den Bosch, The Netherlands
- 3. Department of Radiology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands