Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Two-versus three-dimensional regions of interest for quantifying SPECT-CT images

  • Scientific Paper
  • Published:
Physical and Engineering Sciences in Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship of quantitative parameters between the two-dimensional region of interest (ROI) and the three-dimensional volume of interest (VOI) for accumulation of radiopharmaceutical. Single-photon emission computed tomography combined with computed tomography (SPECT/CT) images of the NEMA/IEC phantom were acquired. The ROIs and VOIs were automatically set to the sphere and background in the phantom. We defined as two-dimensional analysis (2D analysis) that which used ROIs set on the center section of the sphere, and as three-dimensional analysis (3D analysis) that which used VOIs set on the center of gravity of the sphere. Dose linearity (DL), the recovery coefficient (RC), the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and standardized uptake value (SUV) were evaluated. Each index value was compared between both analyses. DL was almost 1 under both conditions. RC showed a similar tendency with 2D and 3D analyses. The CNR for 3D analysis was smaller than for 2D analysis. The maximum SUV was almost equal with both analyses. The mean SUV with 3D analysis was underestimated by 4.83% on average compared with 2D analysis. For the same accumulation, a difference may occur in the quantitative index between 2 and 3D analyses. In particular, the quantitative parameters based on the average value tends to be smaller with 3D analysis than 2D analysis. The quantitative parameters in 2D analysis showed dependence upon the cross section used for setting the ROI, whereas 3D analysis showed less dependence on the position of the VOI.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Palumbo B, Buresta T, Nuvoli S, Spanu A, Schillaci O, Fravolini ML et al (2014) SPECT and PET serve as molecular imaging techniques and in vivo biomarkers for brain metastases. Int J Mol Sci 15:9878–9893

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Keyes JW Jr (1995) SUV: standard uptake or silly useless value? J Nucl Med 36:1836–1839

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Huang SC (2000) Anatomy of SUV. Nucl Med Biol 27:643–646

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kuji I, Yamane T, Seko A, Yasumizu Y, Shirotake S, Oyama M (2017) Skeletal standardized uptake values obtained by quantitative SPECT/CT as an osteoblastic biomarker for the discrimination of active bone metastasis in prostate cancer. Eur J Hybrid Imaging 1:2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kaneta T, Ogawa M, Daisaki H, Nawata S, Yoshida K, Inoue T (2016) SUV measurement of normal vertebrae using SPECT/CT with Tc-99m methylene diphosphonate. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 6:262–268

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Umeda T, Koizumi M, Fukai S, Miyaji N, Motegi K, Nakazawa S et al (2018) Evaluation of bone metastatic burden by bone SPECT/CT in metastatic prostate cancer patients: defining threshold value for total bone uptake and assessment in radium-223 treated patients. Ann Nucl Med 32:105–113

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Manabe O, Ohira H, Yoshinaga K, Naya M, Oyana N, Tamaki N (2017) Qualitative and quantitative assesments of cardiac sarcoidosis using 18F-FDG PET. Ann Nucl Cardiol 3:117–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Miwa K, Takahashi H, Miyaji N, Wagatsuma K, Murata T (2018) Accuracy of standardized uptake values obtained by quantitative PET/CT and SPECT/CT. Jpn J Med Phys 38:79–84

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fukukita H, Senda M, Terauchi T, Suzuki K, Daisaki H, Matsumoto K et al (2010) Japanese guideline for the oncology FDG-PET/CT data acquisition protocol: synopsis of Version 1.0. Ann Nucl Med 24(4):325–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJ, Giammarile F, Tatsch K, Eschner W et al (2015) FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42(2):328–354

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Tsujimoto M, Teramoto A, Ota S, Toyama H, Fujita H (2018) Automated segmentation and detection of increased uptake regions in bone scintigraphy using SPECT/CT images. Ann Nucl Med 32:182–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Nakahara T, Daisaki H, Yamamoto Y, Iimori T, Miyagawa K, Okamoto T et al (2017) Use of a digital phantom developed by QIBA for harmonizing SUVs obtained from the state-of-the-art SPECT/CT systems: a multicenter study. EJNMMI Res 7:53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Tsujimoto M, Shirakawa S, Teramoto A, Ishiguro M, Nakane K, Ida Y, Toyama H (2018) Fluctuation of quantitative values on acquisition time and the reconstruction conditions in 99mTc-SPECT. Nucl Med Commun 39(7):601–609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Vija AH, Hawman EG, Engdahl JC (2003) Analysis of a SPECT OSEM reconstruction method with 3D beam modeling and optional attenuation correction: phantom studies. IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Conf Rec 4:2662–2666

    Google Scholar 

  15. Rõomer W, Reichel N, Vija HA et al (2006) Isotropic reconstruction of SPECT data using OSEM3D: correlation with CT. Acad Radiol 13:496–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Okutomi M, Ozawa S, Sato Y, Shimizu M, Fujiyoshi H, Hori O et al (2015) Digital Image Processing. Revised new (ed) Computer Graphic Arts Society, Tokyo, pp 168–171

  17. Suematsu Y, Yanada H (2000) Image Processing Engineering. Revised (ed) Corona Publishing Co., Ltd., Japan, pp 128–129

  18. Shirakawa S, Ushiroda T, Hashimoto H, Tadokoro M, Uno M, Tsujimoto M et al (2013) Construction of the quantitative analysis environment using monte carlo simulation. Jpn J Nucl Med Technol 33:367–376

    Google Scholar 

  19. Chicco A, Lin P, Som S (2015) Assessment and correction of partial volume effect in SPECT/CT. J Intern Med 45:1–2

    Google Scholar 

  20. Onishi H, Ichihara T, Yamamoto T (2016) Nuclear Medicine Technology. Revised 3rd (ed) Ohmsha K.K, Japan, pp 108–118

  21. Tossici-Bolt L, Hoffman SM, Kemp PM, Mehta RL, Fleming JS (2006) Quantification of 123I-FP-CIT SPECT brain images: an accurate technique for measurement of the specific binding ratio. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 33(12):1491–1499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Velasquez LM, Boellaard R, Kollia G, Hayes W, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA et al (2009) Repeatability of 18F-FDG PET in a multicenter phase I study of patients with advanced gastrointestinal malignancies. J Nucl Med 50:1646–1654

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Fujita Health University Hospital, Toyoake, Japan

    Masakazu Tsujimoto, Masanori Watanabe & Masaki Uno

  2. School of Health Sciences, Fujita Health University, Toyoake, Japan

    Masakazu Tsujimoto, Seiji Shirakawa & Atsushi Teramoto

  3. School of Medicine, Fujita Health University, Toyoake, Japan

    Seiichiro Ota, Ryo Matsukiyo, Taro Okui, Yoshikazu Kobayashi & Hiroshi Toyama

Authors
  1. Masakazu Tsujimoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Seiji Shirakawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Masanori Watanabe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Atsushi Teramoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Masaki Uno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Seiichiro Ota
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ryo Matsukiyo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Taro Okui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Yoshikazu Kobayashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Hiroshi Toyama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Masakazu Tsujimoto.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Fujita Health University Medical Research Ethics Committee (Approval number: HM17-266).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tsujimoto, M., Shirakawa, S., Watanabe, M. et al. Two-versus three-dimensional regions of interest for quantifying SPECT-CT images. Phys Eng Sci Med 44, 365–375 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-021-00983-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-021-00983-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation