Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Registration accuracy of 153Gd transmission images of the brain

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of the study was to determine the accuracy of non-rigid nine-parameter image registrations based on 153Gd transmission computed tomography (TCT) images as compared with those based on 99mTc-ethyl cysteinate dimer (ECD) images and to assess whether normalised mutual information (NMI) or count difference (CD) should be used.

Methods

TCT and ECD data were acquired in 25 randomly selected patients. Emission images were registered to an ECD template with a CD cost function. The same registration parameters were applied to the transmission images to create a TCT template. All TCT images were registered to the TCT template and the same registration parameters were applied to the ECD images. The procedure was repeated with NMI as cost function. Accuracy of both ECD-based and TCT-based registrations was assessed by comparing the normalisation parameter values and regional activities in the spatially normalised ECD images, using a mixed-model analysis of variance (ANOVA). Scheffé post hoc tests were performed.

Results

No significant differences were found between ECD/CD, ECD/NMI and TCT/CD, suggesting that ECD registration can be done with either CD or NMI, and that TCT registration using CD is equally as accurate as ECD registration. The accuracy of TCT registration with NMI was lower, with discrepancies occurring in the frontal inferior region and the cerebellum. The analysis of normalisation parameters indicated that z-scaling is underestimated and yz-rotation overestimated with TCT/NMI registration.

Conclusion

We conclude that ECD registrations with CD or NMI are as accurate as TCT registrations with CD and that TCT registrations with NMI should be avoided.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Slifstein M, Laruelle M. Models and methods for derivation of in vivo neuroreceptor parameters with PET and SPECT reversible radiotracers. Nucl Med Biol 2001;28:595–608.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Evans AC, Collins DL, Mills SR, Brown ED, Kelly RL, Peters TM. 3D statistical neuroanatomical models from 305 MRI volumes. Proc IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference; 1993. p. 1813–7.

  3. Talairach J, Tournoux P. Co-planar stereotaxic atlas of the human brain: 3-dimensional proportional system—an approach to cerebral imaging. New York: Thieme Medical; 1988.

  4. Slomka PJ, Stephenson J, Reid R, Hurwitz GA. Automated template-based quantification of brain SPECT. In: De Deyn PP, et al., editors. SPECT in neurology and psychiatry. London: John Libbey; 1997. p. 507–12.

  5. Tatsch K, Koch W, Linke R, Poepperl G, Peters N, Holtmannspoetter M, Dichgans M. Cortical hypometabolism and crossed cerebellar diaschisis suggest subcortically induced disconnection in CADASIL: an 18F-FDG PET study. J Nucl Med 2003;44:862–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lobaugh NJ, Caldwell CB, Black SE, Leibovitch FS, Swartz RH. Three brain SPECT region-of-interest templates in elderly people: normative values, hemispheric asymmetries, and a comparison of single- and multihead cameras. J Nucl Med 2000;41:45–56.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hutton BF, Braun M, Thurfjell L, Lau DY. Image registration: an essential tool for nuclear medicine. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002;29:559–77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tsao J. Interpolation artifacts in multimodality image registration based on maximization of mutual information. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2003;22:854–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Thurfjell L, Lau YH, Andersson JL, Hutton BF. Improved efficiency for MRI-SPET registration based on mutual information. Eur J Nucl Med 2000;27:847–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Van Laere K, Koole M, D’Asseler Y, Versijpt J, Audenaert K, Dumont F, Dierckx R. Automated stereotactic standardization of brain SPECT receptor data using single-photon transmission images. J Nucl Med 2001;42:361–75.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dey D, Slomka PJ, Hahn LJ, Kloiber R. Automatic three-dimensional multimodality registration using radionuclide transmission CT attenuation maps: a phantom study. J Nucl Med 1999;40:448–55.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Van Laere K, Versijpt J, Audenaert K, Koole M, Goethals I, Achten E, Dierckx R. 99mTc-ECD brain perfusion SPET: variability, asymmetry and effects of age and gender in healthy adults. Eur J Nucl Med 2001;28:873–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. Jacobs.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jacobs, F., Koole, M., Goethals, I. et al. Registration accuracy of 153Gd transmission images of the brain. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 31, 1495–1499 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-004-1599-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-004-1599-5

Keywords

Navigation