THE PHANTOM STUDY OF SPATIAL REGISTRATION IN PET/CT

Authors

  • Taratip NARAWONG Division of Nuclear Medicine, Rajavithi Hospital
  • Kyosan YOSHIKAWA Research Center Hospital for Charged Particle Therapy, National Institute of Radiological Sciences
  • Kenji SAGOU Research Center Hospital for Charged Particle Therapy, National Institute of Radiological Sciences
  • Katsumi TAMURA Research Center Hospital for Charged Particle Therapy, National Institute of Radiological Sciences
  • Hiroyuki ISHIKAWA Research Center Hospital for Charged Particle Therapy, National Institute of Radiological Sciences
  • Susumu KANDATSU Research Center Hospital for Charged Particle Therapy, National Institute of Radiological Sciences
  • Kazutoshi SUZUKI Research Center Hospital for Charged Particle Therapy, National Institute of Radiological Sciences
  • Shuji TANADA Research Center Hospital for Charged Particle Therapy, National Institute of Radiological Sciences
  • Yasuhito SASAKI Research Center Hospital for Charged Particle Therapy, National Institute of Radiological Sciences
  • Hirohiko TSUJII Research Center Hospital for Charged Particle Therapy, National Institute of Radiological Sciences

Keywords:

PET/CT, F18, phantom, registration

Abstract

Objective:  The purpose of this study was to evaluate the spatial registration in terms of the registration difference in PET/CT with the phantom.

Method: Three experiments were performed by using the phantom insert with hollow spheres filled with F-18 and the combined PET/CT system (Siemens, Biograph), including the same offset correction (test 1,2,3) and varied offset correction for the gantry (offset 1,2,3), and the clinical setting. The location of the center of was used for statistical analysis of the location difference. A p-value less than 0.05 was defined to be statistically significant. The acceptable value for the registration difference in the registered image was taken as 1 mm or less.

Result: The mean registration difference in the study of same offset correction for the gantry was 0.68±0.24 mm. The p-values obtained in the first experiment were more than 0.05. There was no statistically significant difference between each test. The average registration difference in the study of varied offset correction for the gantry was 0.51±0.17 mm. There was a statistically significant difference when the difference in the z-axis was more than 0.05 mm. The average registration difference in the clinical setting was 0.50±0.28 mm. There was no statistical significance between the clinical setting and the phantom setting.(p-value = 0.764)

Conclusion: Inthis PET/CT system, the spatial registration was sufficiently accurate in the phantom study and the spatial registration difference in the registered image was less than Imm.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Vogel WV, Oyen WJG, Barentsz JO, KaandersJ H.A.M., Corstens FH.M. PET/ CT: Panacea,Redundancy, or Something in Between? J Nucl Med 2004; 45: 15s-24s

Goerres GW, Kamel E, Heidelberg TNH, Schwitter MR, Burger C, Schulthess GK. PET-CT image co-registration in the thorax: influence of respiration. Eur J Nucl Med 2002; 29: 351-360

Goerres GW, Kamel E, Seifert B, et al. Accuracy of image coregistration of pulmonary lesions in patients with non-small cell lung cancer using an integrated PET/CT system. J Nucl Med 2002; 43: 1469-1475

Osman M, Cohade C, Nakamoto Y, Marshall LT, Leal JP, Wahl RL. Clinical significant inaccurate localization of lesions with PET CT: frequency in 300 patients. J Nucl Med 2003; 44: 240-243

Beyer T, Antoch G, Blodgett T, Freudenberg LF, Akhurst T, Mueller S. Dual-modality PET/CT imaging: the effect of respiratory motion on combined image quality in clinical oncology. EurJ Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003; 30: 588-596

Nakamoto Y, Tatsumi M, Cohade C Osman M, Marshall LT, Wahl RL. Accuracy of image fusion of normal abdominal organs visualized with PET/CT. EurJ Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003; 30: 597-602

Cohade C, Osman M, Marshall LT, Wahl RL. PET-CT: accuracy of PET and CT spatial registration of lung lesions. EurJ Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;30:72 1-726

NEMA. NEMA standards publication NU 2 -2001. Performance measurements of Positron Emission Tomographs. Rosslyn, VA: National Electrical Manufacturers Association; 2001: 30

Downloads

Published

2023-04-20

How to Cite

1.
NARAWONG T, YOSHIKAWA K, SAGOU K, TAMURA K, ISHIKAWA H, KANDATSU S, et al. THE PHANTOM STUDY OF SPATIAL REGISTRATION IN PET/CT. ASEAN J Radiol [Internet]. 2023 Apr. 20 [cited 2024 Dec. 12];11(1):19-26. Available from: https://asean-journal-radiology.org/index.php/ajr/article/view/721

Issue

Section

Original Article

Similar Articles

1 2 3 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.