TABLE 2

Interobserver Variability in Landmark Identification: Comparison Between Algorithm-Based and Scanner-Based Registration for 5 Cases with CT and PET Images from Combined Scanner

Anatomic regionInterobserver variability in landmark identification Mean (95% CI) (mm) Maximum (mm)P value
Scanner (mechanical registration)Algorithm (elastic registration)
Group 1Overall6.6 (5.9, 7.2)6.6 (5.9, 7.2)
12.312.3
Thoracic7.2 (6.6, 7.9)7.2 (6.6, 7.9)
12.312.3
Abdominal5.5 (4.5, 6.5)5.5 (4.5, 6.5)
11.611.6
Group 2Overall7.0 (6.4, 7.7)6.0 (5.5, 6.6)<0.05
14.314.1
Thoracic8.1 (7.4, 8.8)6.8 (6.2, 7.4)<0.05
14.311.9
Abdominal5.4 (4.4, 6.4)4.8 (3.9, 5.8)NS
12.914.1
Group 3Overall7.2 (6.6, 7.9)6.1 (5.5, 6.6)<0.05
12.912.3
Thoracic8.3 (7.5, 9.1)6.8 (6.1, 7.5)<0.05
12.912.3
Abdominal5.5 (4.5, 6.5)4.8 (4.1, 5.7)NS
11.611.6
Group 4Overall8.2 (7.5, 8.9)6.5 (5.9, 7.1)<0.05
13.111.7
Thoracic9.5 (8.6, 10.4)7.5 (6.7, 8.2)<0.05
12.511.7
Abdominal6.2 (5.0, 7.5)5.2 (4.0, 6.4)NS
13.110.9
  • NS = not significant.

  • Group 1: PET1, PET2, PET3; Group 2: PET1, PET2, PETSCANNER or PETALGO; Group 3: PET1, PET3, PETSCANNER or PETALGO; Group 4: PET2, PET3, PETSCANNER or PETALGO.