HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Skalski, J. Articles by Meyer, C. R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Skalski, J. Articles by Meyer, C. R.

Comparison of Mutual Information-Based Warping Accuracy for Fusing Body CT and PET by 2 Methods: CT Mapped onto PET Emission Scan Versus CT Mapped onto PET Transmission Scan

¹ Department of Nuclear Medicine and Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
² Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan

This article assesses the resulting accuracies of 2 registration methods using the same multimodal mutual information registration algorithm. In the indirect, fusion method, the CT dataset is warped onto the PET transmission scan, and then the patient’s attenuation-corrected emission dataset is substituted for the transmission dataset. In the direct, fusion method, the CT is warped directly onto the attenuation-corrected emission dataset. Methods: CT and ¹⁸F-FDG PET image datasets from 14 subjects with malignant lesions in the thorax were registered. In both CT and PET imaging acquisitions, the patient’s arms were at the patient’s side, resting on the scanning couch in a manner similar to that of routine PET acquisition procedures. The accuracy of the 2 warping registrations was assessed by measuring the distance between lesion centroids on CT and PET emission after fusion. Results: The indirect method has a statistically smaller mean error, 6.2 mm, than the direct method, 10.6 mm. Conclusion: The indirect method appears to be the more accurate/reliable choice for fusing body CT and FDG PET.

Key Words: registration • fusion • mutual information • CT • PET • emission • transmission • lesion centroids

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. Shekhar, V. Walimbe, S. Raja, V. Zagrodsky, M. Kanvinde, G. Wu, and B. Bybel Automated 3-Dimensional Elastic Registration of Whole-Body PET and CT from Separate or Combined Scanners J. Nucl. Med., September 1, 2005; 46(9): 1488 - 1496. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J.-H. Kim, J. Czernin, M. S. Allen-Auerbach, B. S. Halpern, B. J. Fueger, J. R. Hecht, O. Ratib, M. E. Phelps, and W. A. Weber Comparison Between 18F-FDG PET, In-Line PET/CT, and Software Fusion for Restaging of Recurrent Colorectal Cancer J. Nucl. Med., April 1, 2005; 46(4): 587 - 595. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. V. Vogel, W. J.G. Oyen, J. O. Barentsz, J. H.A.M. Kaanders, and F. H.M. Corstens PET/CT: Panacea, Redundancy, or Something in Between? J. Nucl. Med., January 1, 2004; 45(90010): 15S - 24. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. J. Slomka Software Approach to Merging Molecular with Anatomic Information J. Nucl. Med., January 1, 2004; 45(90010): 36S - 45. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. J. Slomka, D. Dey, C. Przetak, U. E. Aladl, and R. P. Baum Automated 3-Dimensional Registration of Stand-Alone 18F-FDG Whole-Body PET with CT J. Nucl. Med., July 1, 2003; 44(7): 1156 - 1167. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]