|
|
|
|||
| Journals Home | Journals List | EJs Extra | This Journal | Search | Authors | Referees | Librarians | User Options | Help | | ||||
2009 Phys. Med. Biol. 54 6901-6916 doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/54/22/010
![]()
|
||||
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)| Post to CiteUlike | | Post to Connotea | | Post to Bibsonomy |
|
Journals Home | Journals List | EJs Extra | This Journal | Search | Authors | Referees | Librarians | User Options | Help | Recommend this journal 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 |