Skip to main content
Log in

Optimal monochromatic color combinations for fusion imaging of FDG-PET and diffusion-weighted MR images

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

Abstract

Objective

To investigate the optimal monochromatic color combination for fusion imaging of FDG-PET and diffusion-weighted MR images (DW) regarding lesion conspicuity of each image.

Methods

Six linear monochromatic color-maps of red, blue, green, cyan, magenta, and yellow were assigned to each of the FDG-PET and DW images. Total perceptual color differences of the lesions were calculated based on the lightness and chromaticity measured with the photometer. Visual lesion conspicuity was also compared among the PET-only, DW-only and PET-DW-double positive portions with mean conspicuity scores. Statistical analysis was performed with a one-way analysis of variance and Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient.

Results

Among all the 12 possible monochromatic color-map combinations, the 3 combinations of red/cyan, magenta/green, and red/green produced the highest conspicuity scores. Total color differences between PET-positive and double-positive portions correlated with conspicuity scores (ρ = 0.2933, p < 0.005). Lightness differences showed a significant negative correlation with conspicuity scores between the PET-only and DWI-only positive portions. Chromaticity differences showed a marginally significant correlation with conspicuity scores between DWI-positive and double-positive portions.

Conclusions

Monochromatic color combinations can facilitate the visual evaluation of FDG-uptake and diffusivity as well as registration accuracy on the FDG-PET/DW fusion images, when red- and green-colored elements are assigned to FDG-PET and DW images, respectively.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Nagamachi S, Nishii R, Wakamatsu H, et al. The usefulness of 18F-FDG PET/MRI fusion image in diagnosing pancreatic tumor: comparison with 18F-FDG PET/CT. Ann Nucl Med. 2013;27:554–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kitajima K, Suenaga Y, Ueno Y, et al. Fusion of PET and MRI for staging of uterine cervical cancer: comparison with contrast-enhanced 18F-FDG PET/CT and pelvic MRI. Clin Imaging. 2014;38:464–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Heusch P, Nensa F, Schaarschmidt B, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of whole-body PET/MRI and whole-body PET/CT for TNM staging in oncology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:42–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kanda T, Kitajima K, Suenaga Y, et al. Value of retrospective image fusion of 18F-FDG PET and MRI for preoperative staging of head and neck cancer: comparison with PET/CT and contrast-enhanced neck MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82:2005–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Heusch P, Sproll C, Buchbender C, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound, 18F-FDG-PET/CT, and fused 18F-FDG-PET-MR images with DWI for the detection of cervical lymph node metastases of HNSCC. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18:969–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Schmidt H, Brendle C, Schraml C, et al. Correlation of simultaneously acquired diffusion-weighted imaging and 2-deoxy-[18F] fluoro-2-d-glucose positron emission tomography of pulmonary lesions in a dedicated whole-body magnetic resonance/positron emission tomography system. Investig Radiol. 2013;48:247–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Park H-H, Kim SY, Cho A, et al. (2007) The value of fusion imaging with FDG-PET and DWI MR in ovarian lesions. J Nucl Med Meet Abstr 48:457.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Valdés Hernández MdC, Ferguson KJ, Chappell FM, Wardlaw JM. New multispectral MRI data fusion technique for white matter lesion segmentation: method and comparison with thresholding in FLAIR images. Eur Radiol. 2010;20:1684–91.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Phillips WE 2nd, Brown HK, Bouza J, Figueroa RE. Neuroradiologic MR applications with multiparametric color composite display. Magn Reson Imaging. 1996;14:59–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Alfano B, Brunetti A, Ciarmiello A, Salvatore M. Simultaneous display of multiple MR parameters with “quantitative magnetic color imaging”. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1992;16:634–40.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Robertson AR. Historical development of CIE recommended color difference equations. Color Res Appl. 1990;15:167–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Zhu YM, Nortmann CA. Pixel-feature hybrid fusion for PET/CT images. J Digit Imaging. 2011;24:50–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Park H, Wood D, Hussain H, et al. Introducing parametric fusion PET/MRI of primary prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:546–51.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Mr. Eiji Myokan and Mr. Koji Kawano at EIZO Corporation for their support measuring lightness and chromaticity using the CS-1000A spectrophotometer.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuji Watanabe.

Appendix

Appendix

The Yxy system and CIE L*a*b* (CIELAB) system proposed by the International Commission on Illumination (CIE, Vienna, Austria) [11] were adopted in this analysis. The Yxy system is a widely used method to specify colors, where the parameter Y indicates the lightness of a color, and the chromaticity of a color is specified by the remaining two parameters x and y. CIELAB is a complete color space that describes all the colors that the human eye perceives. The three coordinates of CIELAB stand for the lightness of a color (L*), its position between red/magenta and green (a*), and its position between yellow/blue (b*).

The calculation of color differences requires the conversion of Yxy values to L*a*b* values. This can be done with a white reference point, which is the maximum white level on the monitor of interest. The color difference indicated by the Euclidean distance between the two colors in CIELAB space is known as the CIE 1976 formula. The mathematical details are as follows.

First, the measured Yxy values are converted into XYZ values.

$$\begin{gathered} X=Y \cdot x/y \hfill \\ Z=Y \cdot (1 - x - y)/y. \hfill \\ \end{gathered}$$

L*a*b* values are calculated according to the following equations:

$$L*=116f\left( {\frac{Y}{{{Y_n}}}} \right) - 16$$
$$a*=500\left\{ {f\left( {\frac{X}{{{X_n}}}} \right) - f\left( {\frac{Y}{{{Y_n}}}} \right)} \right\}$$
$$b*=200\left\{ {f\left( {\frac{Y}{{{Y_n}}}} \right) - f\left( {\frac{Z}{{{Z_n}}}} \right)} \right\}$$
$$f\left( {\frac{t}{{{t_n}}}} \right)={\left( {\frac{t}{{{t_n}}}} \right)^{1/3}}\quad {\text{if}}\quad \frac{t}{{{t_n}}}>0.008856$$
$$f\left( {\frac{t}{{{t_n}}}} \right)=7.787\left( {\frac{t}{{{t_n}}}} \right)+\frac{{16}}{{116}}\quad {\text{if}}\quad \frac{t}{{{t_n}}}>0.008856,$$

where Xn, Yn, and Zn are the values of X, Y, and Z for the appropriate white reference value.

Finally, color differences are computed with the following equations.

Total color difference:

$${{\Delta}}\,E=\sqrt {{{\left( {L_{1}^{*} - L_{2}^{*}} \right)}^2}+{{\left( {a_{1}^{*} - a_{2}^{*}} \right)}^2}+{{\left( {b_{1}^{*} - b_{2}^{*}} \right)}^2}} .$$

The chromaticity difference is the color difference after accounting for lightness differences.

$${\text{Lightness difference:}}\quad {{\Delta}}\,L=L_{1}^{*} - L_{2}^{*}$$
$${\text{Chromaticity difference:}}\quad {{\Delta}}\,ab=\sqrt {{{\left( {a_{1}^{*} - a_{2}^{*}} \right)}^2}+{{\left( {b_{1}^{*} - b_{2}^{*}} \right)}^2}} .$$

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kamei, R., Watanabe, Y., Sagiyama, K. et al. Optimal monochromatic color combinations for fusion imaging of FDG-PET and diffusion-weighted MR images. Ann Nucl Med 32, 437–445 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-018-1263-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-018-1263-y

Keywords

Navigation