A Brain MRI/SPECT Registration System Using an Adaptive Similarity Metric: Application on the Evaluation of Parkinson’s Disease

  • Jiann-Der Lee
  • Chung-Hsien Huang
  • Cheng-Wei Chen
  • Yi-Hsin Weng
  • Kun-Ju Lin
  • Chin-Tu Chen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4418)


Single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) of dopamine transporters with 99m Tc-TRODAT-1 has recently been proposed to provide valuable information of assessing the dopaminergic system. In order to measure the binding ratio of the nuclear medicine, registering magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and SPECT image is a significant process. Therefore, an automated MRI/SPECT image registration algorithm of using an adaptive similarity metric is proposed. This similarity metric combines anatomic features characterized by specific binding (SB), the mean counts per voxel within the specific tissues, of nuclear medicine and distribution of image intensity characterized by the Normalized Mutual Information (NMI). In addition, we have also built a computer-aid clinical diagnosis system which automates all the processes of MRI/SPECT registration for further evaluation of Parkinson’s disease. Clinical MRI/SPECT data from eighteen healthy subjects and thirteen patients are involved to validate the performance of the proposed system. Comparing with the conventional NMI-based registration algorithm, our system reduces the target of registration error (TRE) from >7 mm to approximate 4 mm. From the view point of clinical evaluation, the error of binding ratio, the ratio of specific-to-non-specific 99m Tc-TRODAT-1 binding, is 0.20 in the healthy group and 0.13 in the patient group via the proposed system.


Registration MRI SPECT Medical Imaging Similarity Metric 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Pohjonen, H.K., et al.: Abdominal SPECT/MRI fusion applied to the study of splenic and hepatic uptake of radiolabeled thrombocytes and colloids. Ann. Nucl. Med. 10, 409–417 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Forster, G.J., et al.: SPET/CT image co-registration in the abdomen with a simple and cost-effective tool. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 30, 32–39 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Weng, Y.H., et al.: Sensitivity and specificity of 99mTc-TRODAT-1 SPECT imaging in differentiating patients with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease from healthy subjects. J. Nucl. Med. 45, 393–401 (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grova, C., et al.: A methodology to validate MRI/SPECT registration methods using realistic simulated SPECT data. In: Niessen, W.J., Viergever, M.A. (eds.) MICCAI 2001. LNCS, vol. 2208, pp. 275–282. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yokoi, T., et al.: Accuracy and reproducibility of co-registration techniques based on mutual information and normalized mutual information for MRI and SPECT brain images. Ann. Nucl. Med. 18, 659–667 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thurfjell, L., et al.: Improved efficiency for MR-SPET registration based on mutual information. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. 27, 847–856 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhu, Y.M., Cochoff, S.M.: Influence of implementation parameters on registration of MR and SPECT brain images by maximization of mutual information. J. Nucl. Med. 43, 160–166 (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maes, F., et al.: Multimodality image registration by maximization of mutual information. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 16, 187–198 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pluim, J.P.W., Maintz, J.B.A., Viergever, M.A.: Mutual-information-based registration of medical images: a survey. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 22, 986–1004 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Studholme, C., Hill, D.L.G., Hawkes, D.J.: An overlap invariant entropy measure of 3D medical image alignment. Pattern Recognition 32, 71–86 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Periaswamy, S., Farid, H.: Elastic registration in the presence of intensity variations. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 22, 865–874 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Collins, D.L., et al.: Automatic 3D model-based neuroanatomical segmentation. Hum. Brain Mapp. 3, 190–208 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pfluger, T., et al.: Quantitative comparison of automatic and interactive methods for MRI-SPECT image registration of the brain based on 3-Dimensional calculation of error. J. Nucl. Med. 41, 1823–1829 (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Press, W.H., et al.: Numerical Recipes in C++, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jiann-Der Lee
    • 1
  • Chung-Hsien Huang
    • 1
  • Cheng-Wei Chen
    • 1
  • Yi-Hsin Weng
    • 2
  • Kun-Ju Lin
    • 3
  • Chin-Tu Chen
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Electrical Engineering, Chang Gung University, Tao-YuanTaiwan
  2. 2.Movement Disorder Session, Department of Neurology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, and University, TaipeiTaiwan
  3. 3.Molecular Image Center and Nuclear Medicine Department, Chang Gung Memorial, Hospital, LinkoTaiwan
  4. 4.Department of Radiology and Committee on Medical Physics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IllinoisUSA

Personalised recommendations