journals.iop.org home page electronic journals * User guide   * Site map   | Quick Search:Help  
Physics in Medicine and Biology
Athens/Institutional login
IOP login: Password:   
Create account | Alerts | Contact us
Journals Home | Journals List | EJs Extra | This Journal | Search | Authors | Referees | Librarians | User Options | Help |

Development of a generic thresholding algorithm for the delineation of 18FDG-PET-positive tissue: application to the comparison of three thresholding models

S Vauclin et al 2009 Phys. Med. Biol. 54 6901-6916   doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/54/22/010  Help

   PDF (289 KB) | References

S Vauclin1,2, K Doyeux1,2, S Hapdey1,3, A Edet-Sanson1,3, P Vera1,3 and I Gardin1,3
1 LITIS Laboratory EA 4108—QUANT.I.F, University of Rouen, Rouen, France
2 Siemens Medical Solutions, Bobigny, France
3 Department of Nuclear Medicine, Henri Becquerel Centre and Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France

Abstract. An iterative generic algorithm has been developed to compare three thresholding models used to delineate gross tumour volume on 18F-FDG PET images. 3D volume was extracted and characteristic parameters were measured. Three fitting models using different parameters were studied: model 1 (volume, contrast), model 2 (contrast) and model 3 (SUV). The calibration was performed using a cylindrical phantom filled with hot spheres. To validate the models, two other phantoms were used. The calibration procedure showed a better fitting model for model 1 (R2 from 0.94 to 1.00) than for model 3 (0.95) and model 2 (0.69). The validation study shows that model 3 yielded large volume measurement errors. Models 1 and 2 gave close results with no significant differences. Model 2 was preferred because it presents less error dispersion and needs fewer characteristic parameters, making it easier to implement. Our results show the importance of developing a generic algorithm to compare the performances of fitting models objectively and to validate results on other phantoms than the ones used during the calibration process to avoid methodological biases.

Print publication: Issue 22 (21 November 2009)
Received 3 June 2009, in final form 6 October 2009
Published 28 October 2009

Bookmark and Share Post to CiteUlike | Post to Connotea | Post to Bibsonomy

 


Find related articles






Article options

Authors & Referees

 
Content finder
  Full Search
  Help


  
Setup information is available for Adobe Acrobat.
EndNote, ProCite ® and Reference Manager ® are registered trademarks of ISI Researchsoft.
Copyright © Institute of Physics and IOP Publishing Limited 2009.
Use of this service is subject to compliance with the Terms and Conditions of use. In particular, reselling and systematic downloading of files is prohibited.
Help: Cookies | Data Protection. Privacy policy Disclaimer