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

This Article Abstract 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 Related articles in JNM 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 Shekhar, R. Articles by Bybel, B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Shekhar, R. Articles by Bybel, B.

Automated 3-Dimensional Elastic Registration of Whole-Body PET and CT from Separate or Combined Scanners

¹ Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland
² Department of Biomedical Engineering, Lerner Research Institute, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio
³ Biomedical Engineering Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
⁴ Department of Radiology, Lahey Clinic, Burlington, Massachusetts
⁵ Department of Radiology, Medina General Hospital, Medina, Ohio
⁶ Department of Molecular and Functional Imaging, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio

View larger version (15K): [in a new window]   FIGURE 1. Graphic illustration of the concept of test landmarks and validation approach. TE1, TE2, TE3: Transformation fields determined independently by experts 1, 2, and 3, respectively; TA: Transformation field determined using algorithm; CTE1, CTE2, CTE3: Location of a landmark identified in CT image space independently by experts 1, 2, and 3, respectively; CTTEST: Test landmark, calculated as average of (CTE1, CTE2, CTE3); PETEXPERT is calculated as average of (PET1, PET2, PET3).

View larger version (61K): [in a new window]   FIGURE 2. Example of registration of CT and PET images acquired from separate scanners. (A) Original CT. (B) PET after rigid-body registration. (C) PET after elastic registration. (D) PET/CT fused after rigid-body registration. (E) PET/CT fused after elastic registration. Solid rectangles highlight improvement in matching of a cancerous mass in CT and PET after elastic registration as compared with only rigid-body registration. Also note the improved matching near the liver (marked by arrows) after elastic registration as compared with rigid-body registration.

View larger version (61K): [in a new window]   FIGURE 3. Registration of CT and PET acquired using combined PET/CT scanner. (A) Original CT. (B) Original PET. (C) PET after elastic registration. (D) Original PET/CT fused. (E) PET/CT fused after elastic registration. Rectangular box and arrows highlight improvement in matching in corresponding areas after elastic registration.