ArticleEJNMMI research2013
Influence of rigid coregistration of PET and CT data on metabolic volumetry: a user's perspective.
Article in EJNMMI research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile non-rigid fusion is by definition expected to alter the information of positron emission tomography (PET) data, we assessed whether rigid transformation also influences metabolic tumor volume (MTV) determination.
methodsThe PET/computed tomography (CT) data of 28 solid pulmonary lesions of 20 tumor patients examined with 18 F-Fluordeoxyglucose (FDG) was retrospectively analyzed. The original (OR) hardware-coregistered PET images were fused with contrast-enhanced diagnostic CT (CT1, 1 mm slices) and low dose CT (CT5, 5 mm slices). After automatic rigid transformation (Mirada Fusion7D) using two algorithms (rigid fast (RF), rigid slow (RS)), MTV and maximal standardized uptake value (SUVmax) were determined applying four different segmentation methods with either fixed or background-adapted thresholding and compared to OR-PET data.
resultsRelative differences in SUVmax compared to OR data revealed no significant differences for RF (median, -0.1%; interquartile range (IQR), -1.1% to 0.9%; p = 0.75) and RS (median, 0.5%; IQR, -0.6% to 1.3%; p = 0.19) in CT1, whereas in CT5 significant deviations were observed for RF (median, -9.0%; IQR, -10.9 to -6.1; p < 0.001) and RS (median, -8.4%; IQR, -11.1 to -5.6; p < 0.001). Relative MTV differences were 0.7% (IQR, -3.0% to 2.7%; p = 0.76) for RF and -1.3% (IQR, -3.6% to 0.9%; p = 0.12) for RS in CT1. Coregistration led to significant MTV differences in RF (median, 10.4%; IQR, 7.4% to 16.7%; p < 0.001) and RS (median, 10.6%; IQR, 5.4% to 17.7%; p < 0.001) in CT5.
conclusionsRigid coregistration of PET data allows a quantitative evaluation with reasonable accuracy in most cases. However, in some cases, it can result in substantial deviations of MTV and SUVmax. Therefore, it is recommended to perform quantitative evaluation in the original PET data rather than in coregistered PET data.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.