Nonrigid Versus Rigid Registration of Thoracic 18F-FDG PET and CT in Patients with Lung Cancer: An Intraindividual Comparison of Different Breathing Maneuvers

In lung cancer, 18F-FDG PET, CT, and 18F-FDG PET/CT are used for noninvasive staging and therapy planning. Even with improved image registration techniques—especially in the modern hybrid PET/CT scanners—inaccuracies in the fusion process may occur, leading to errors in image interpretation. The aim of this study was to investigate by an intraindividual analysis whether, in comparison with a rigid algorithm, a nonrigid registration algorithm improves the quality of fusion between 18F-FDG PET and CT. Methods: Sixteen patients with histologically proven non–small cell lung cancer underwent a thoracic 18F-FDG PET acquisition in radiotherapy treatment position and 3 CT acquisitions (expiration, inspiration, and mid breath-hold) on the same day. All scans were registered with rigid and nonrigid procedures, resulting in 6 fused datasets: rigid inspiration, rigid expiration, rigid mid breath-hold, nonrigid inspiration, nonrigid expiration, and nonrigid mid breath-hold. The quality of alignment was assessed by 3 experienced readers at 8 anatomic landmarks: lung apices, aortic arch, heart, spine, sternum, carina, diaphragm, and tumor using an alignment score ranging from 1 (no alignment) to 5 (exact alignment). Results: Nonrigid PET/CT showed better alignment than rigid PET/CT (3.5 ± 0.7 vs. 3.3 ± 0.7, P < 0.001). Regarding the breathing maneuver, no difference between nonrigid mid breath-hold and rigid mid breath-hold was observed. In contrast, the alignment quality significantly improved from rigid expiration to nonrigid expiration (3.4 ± 0.7 vs. 3.6 ± 0.7, P < 0.001) and from rigid inspiration to nonrigid inspiration (3.1 ± 0.7 vs. 3.3 ± 0.7, P < 0.001). With regard to individual landmarks, an improvement in fusion quality through the use of nonrigid registration was obvious at the lung apices, carina, and aortic arch. Conclusion: The alignment quality of thoracic 18F-FDG PET/CT exhibits a marked dependence on the breathing maneuver performed during the CT acquisition, as demonstrated in an intraindividual comparison. Nonrigid registration is a significant improvement over rigid registration if the CT is performed during full inspiration or full expiration. The best fusion results are obtained with the CT performed at mid breath-hold using rigid registration, without an improvement using nonrigid algorithms.

[1]  Andrea Schaefer,et al.  A contrast-oriented algorithm for FDG-PET-based delineation of tumour volumes for the radiotherapy of lung cancer: derivation from phantom measurements and validation in patient data , 2008, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[2]  W. Grove Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, 2nd ed , 1981 .

[3]  Elkan F Halpern,et al.  Optimal CT breathing protocol for combined thoracic PET/CT. , 2006, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[4]  Xiao-Cheng Wu,et al.  Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975–2005, Featuring Trends in Lung Cancer, Tobacco Use, and Tobacco Control , 2008, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[5]  J Hornegger,et al.  Anatomical accuracy of interactive and automated rigid registration between X-ray CT and FDG-PET , 2007, Nuklearmedizin.

[6]  A. Fischman,et al.  Hybrid PET/CT of the Thorax: When Is Computer Registration Necessary? , 2007, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[7]  Thomas Beyer,et al.  Dual-modality PET/CT imaging: the effect of respiratory motion on combined image quality in clinical oncology , 2003, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[8]  B. Everitt,et al.  Statistical methods for rates and proportions , 1973 .

[9]  U. Pietrzyk Does PET/CT render software registration obsolete? , 2005, Nuklearmedizin.

[10]  Michael E Phelps,et al.  Presurgical staging of non-small cell lung cancer: positron emission tomography, integrated positron emission tomography/CT, and software image fusion. , 2005, Chest.

[11]  Michael T. Halpern,et al.  EVALUATION OF HEALTHCARE RESOURCE UTILIZATION (HRU) AND COSTS OF ANEMIA AMONG CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE PULMONARY DISEASE (COPD) PATIENTS , 2005 .

[12]  Tinsu Pan,et al.  Frequent Diagnostic Errors in Cardiac PET/CT Due to Misregistration of CT Attenuation and Emission PET Images: A Definitive Analysis of Causes, Consequences, and Corrections , 2007, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[13]  R. Shekhar,et al.  Automated 3-dimensional elastic registration of whole-body PET and CT from separate or combined scanners. , 2005, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[14]  C. Pelizzari,et al.  Accurate Three‐Dimensional Registration of CT, PET, and/or MR Images of the Brain , 1989, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[15]  Gerald Q. Maguire,et al.  Comparison and evaluation of retrospective intermodality brain image registration techniques. , 1997, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[16]  Paul Kinahan,et al.  A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. , 2000, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[17]  R. Bridges Software Fusion: An Option Never Fully Explored , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[18]  U. Nestle,et al.  FDG-PET-based radiotherapy planning in lung cancer: optimum breathing protocol and patient positioning--an intraindividual comparison. , 2009, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[19]  Christoph Palm,et al.  Whole-body PET/CT imaging: combining software- and hardware-based co-registration. , 2008, Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik.

[20]  Damini Dey,et al.  Automated 3-dimensional registration of stand-alone (18)F-FDG whole-body PET with CT. , 2003, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[21]  T. Bilfinger Surgical viewpoints for the definitive treatment of lung cancer. , 2003, Respiratory care clinics of North America.

[22]  D. Hellwig,et al.  FDG-PET, PET/CT and conventional nuclear medicine procedures in the evaluation of lung cancer , 2009, Nuklearmedizin.

[23]  Improved Radiologic Staging of Lung Cancer with 2-[18F]-Fluoro-2-Deoxy-d-Glucose–Positron Emission Tomography and Computed Tomography Registration , 2003, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[24]  A. Fischman,et al.  Comparison of alignment of computer-registered data sets: combined PET/CT versus independent PET and CT of the thorax. , 2005, Radiology.

[25]  Torsten Hothorn,et al.  Comparison of performance between rigid and non-rigid software registering CT to FDG-PET , 2007, International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery.

[26]  D. Hellwig,et al.  Value of FDG PET in the management of NSCLC. , 2004, Lung cancer.

[27]  I. Bloch,et al.  Combining a breathing model and tumor-specific rigidity constraints for registration of CT-PET thoracic data , 2008, Computer aided surgery : official journal of the International Society for Computer Aided Surgery.

[28]  Marcel van Herk,et al.  Impact of anatomical location on value of CT-PET co-registration for delineation of lung tumors. , 2008, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[29]  A J Reader,et al.  Respiratory motion correction for PET oncology applications using affine transformation of list mode data , 2007, Physics in medicine and biology.

[30]  Cyrill Burger,et al.  PET-CT image co-registration in the thorax: influence of respiration , 2002, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[31]  Neil Woodhouse,et al.  Nonrigid Image Registration for Head and Neck Cancer Radiotherapy Treatment Planning With PET/CT , 2007, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[32]  C. Ling,et al.  Effect of respiratory gating on quantifying PET images of lung cancer. , 2002, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.