The Complexity and Fractal Geometry of Nuclear Medicine Images
- 39 Downloads
Irregularity in shape and behavior is the main feature of every anatomical system, including human organs, tissues, cells, and sub-cellular entities. It has been shown that this property cannot be quantified by means of the classical Euclidean geometry, which is only able to describe regular geometrical objects. In contrast, fractal geometry has been widely applied in several scientific fields. This rapid growth has also produced substantial insights in the biomedical imaging. Consequently, particular attention has been given to the identification of pathognomonic patterns of “shape” in anatomical entities and their changes from natural to pathological states. Despite the advantages of fractal mathematics and several studies demonstrating its applicability to oncological research, many researchers and clinicians remain unaware of its potential. Therefore, this review aims to summarize the complexity and fractal geometry of nuclear medicine images.
Key wordsFractals Geometry Complexity Anatomy Nuclear medicine
The “Michele Rodriguez” Foundation is acknowledged for the scientific support.
The Italian Association for Research on Cancer (AIRC—Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro) provided financial support for the research with the grant no. 18923.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 2.Grizzi F, Chiriva-Internati M (2005) The complexity of anatomical systems. Theor Biol Med Model 19:2–26Google Scholar
- 3.Simon AH (1962) The architecture of complexity. Proc Am Philos Soc 106:467–482Google Scholar
- 6.Sargut G, McGrath RG (2011) Learning to live with complexity. Harv Bus Rev 89(68–76):136Google Scholar
- 21.West BJ (2010) Fractal physiology and the fractional calculus: a perspective. Front Physiol 14:1–12Google Scholar
- 24.Grizzi F, Russo C, Colombo P et al (2005) Quantitative evaluation and modeling of two-dimensional neovascular network complexity: the surface fractal dimension. BMC Cancer 8:5–14Google Scholar
- 27.Captur G, Karperien AL, Li C et al (2015) Fractal frontiers in cardiovascular magnetic resonance: towards clinical implementation. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 7:17–80Google Scholar
- 49.Streba CT, Pirici D, Vere CC, Mogoantă L, Comănescu V, Rogoveanu I (2011) Fractal analysis differentiation of nuclear and vascular patterns in hepatocellular carcinomas and hepatic metastasis. Romanian J Morphol Embryol 52:845–854Google Scholar
- 51.Barrington SF, Mikhaeel NG, Kostakoglu L, Meignan M, Hutchings M, Müeller SP, Schwartz LH, Zucca E, Fisher RI, Trotman J, Hoekstra OS, Hicks RJ, O'Doherty MJ, Hustinx R, Biggi A, Cheson BD (2014) Role of imaging in the staging and response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the International Conference on Malignant Lymphomas Imaging Working Group. J Clin Oncol 32:3048–3058CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 54.Kessler LG, Barnhart HX, Buckler AJ, Choudhury KR, Kondratovich MV, Toledano A, Guimaraes AR, Filice R, Zhang Z, Sullivan DC, QIBA Terminology Working Group (2015) The emerging science of quantitative imaging biomarkers terminology and definitions for scientific studies and regulatory submissions. Stat Methods Med Res 24:9–26CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 57.Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, Georgoulias V, Eisenhut M, Herth F, Koukouraki S, Mäcke HR, Haberkorn U, Strauss LG (2006) Quantitative assessment of SSTR2 expression in patients with non-small cell lung cancer using 68Ga-DOTATOC PET and comparison with 18F-FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 33:823–830CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 60.Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, Strauss LG, Schwarzbach M, Burger C, Heichel T, Willeke F, Mechtersheimer G, Lehnert T (2001) Dynamic PET 18F-FDG studies in patients with primary and recurrent soft-tissue sarcomas: impact on diagnosis and correlation with grading. J Nucl Med 42:713–720PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 63.Koukouraki S, Strauss LG, Georgoulias V, Eisenhut M, Haberkorn U, Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A (2006) Comparison of the pharmacokinetics of 68Ga-DOTATOC and [18F]FDG in patients with metastatic neuroendocrine tumours scheduled for 90Y-DOTATOC therapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 33:1115–1122CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 66.Sachpekidis C, Hillengass J, Goldschmidt H, Wagner B, Haberkorn U, Kopka K, Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A (2017) Treatment response evaluation with 18F-FDG PET/CT and 18F-NaF PET/CT in multiple myeloma patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44:50–62CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 69.Tochigi T, Shuto K, Kono T, Ohira G, Tohma T, Gunji H, Hayano K, Narushima K, Fujishiro T, Hanaoka T, Akutsu Y, Okazumi S, Matsubara H (2017) Heterogeneity of glucose metabolism in esophageal cancer measured by fractal analysis of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography image: correlation between metabolic heterogeneity and survival. Dig Surg 34:186–191CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 71.Kuikka JT, Tiihonen J, Karhu J et al (1997) Fractal analysis of striatal dopamine re-uptake sites. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 24:1085–1090Google Scholar