Display options
Cite
Chow TW, Takeshita S, Honjo K, et al. Comparison of manual and semi-automated delineation of regions of interest for radioligand PET imaging analysis. BMC Nucl Med. 2007;7:2doi: 10.1186/1471-2385-7-2.
Chow, T. W., Takeshita, S., Honjo, K., Pataky, C. E., St Jacques, P. L., Kusano, M. L., Caldwell, C. B., Ramirez, J., Black, S., & Verhoeff, N. P. (2007). Comparison of manual and semi-automated delineation of regions of interest for radioligand PET imaging analysis. BMC nuclear medicine, 72. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2385-7-2
Chow, Tiffany W, et al. "Comparison of manual and semi-automated delineation of regions of interest for radioligand PET imaging analysis." BMC nuclear medicine vol. 7 (2007): 2. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2385-7-2
Chow TW, Takeshita S, Honjo K, Pataky CE, St Jacques PL, Kusano ML, Caldwell CB, Ramirez J, Black S, Verhoeff NP. Comparison of manual and semi-automated delineation of regions of interest for radioligand PET imaging analysis. BMC Nucl Med. 2007 Jan 29;7:2. doi: 10.1186/1471-2385-7-2. PMID: 17261193; PMCID: PMC1802071.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

BMC Nucl Med. 2007 Jan 29;7:2. doi: 10.1186/1471-2385-7-2.

Comparison of manual and semi-automated delineation of regions of interest for radioligand PET imaging analysis.

BMC nuclear medicine

Tiffany W Chow, Shinichiro Takeshita, Kie Honjo, Christina E Pataky, Peggy L St Jacques, Maggie L Kusano, Curtis B Caldwell, Joel Ramirez, Sandra Black, Nicolaas P L G Verhoeff

Affiliations

  1. Rotman Research Institute, Baycrest, Toronto, Canada. [email protected]

PMID: 17261193 PMCID: PMC1802071 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2385-7-2

Abstract

BACKGROUND: As imaging centers produce higher resolution research scans, the number of man-hours required to process regional data has become a major concern. Comparison of automated vs. manual methodology has not been reported for functional imaging. We explored validation of using automation to delineate regions of interest on positron emission tomography (PET) scans. The purpose of this study was to ascertain improvements in image processing time and reproducibility of a semi-automated brain region extraction (SABRE) method over manual delineation of regions of interest (ROIs).

METHODS: We compared 2 sets of partial volume corrected serotonin 1a receptor binding potentials (BPs) resulting from manual vs. semi-automated methods. BPs were obtained from subjects meeting consensus criteria for frontotemporal degeneration and from age- and gender-matched healthy controls. Two trained raters provided each set of data to conduct comparisons of inter-rater mean image processing time, rank order of BPs for 9 PET scans, intra- and inter-rater intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), repeatability coefficients (RC), percentages of the average parameter value (RM%), and effect sizes of either method.

RESULTS: SABRE saved approximately 3 hours of processing time per PET subject over manual delineation (p < .001). Quality of the SABRE BP results was preserved relative to the rank order of subjects by manual methods. Intra- and inter-rater ICC were high (>0.8) for both methods. RC and RM% were lower for the manual method across all ROIs, indicating less intra-rater variance across PET subjects' BPs.

CONCLUSION: SABRE demonstrated significant time savings and no significant difference in reproducibility over manual methods, justifying the use of SABRE in serotonin 1a receptor radioligand PET imaging analysis. This implies that semi-automated ROI delineation is a valid methodology for future PET imaging analysis.

References

  1. Neurochem Int. 1997 Jun;30(6):565-74 - PubMed
  2. Neurology. 2001 Nov 27;57(10):1756-63 - PubMed
  3. Med Inform (Lond). 1998 Jul-Sep;23 (3):207-14 - PubMed
  4. Arch Neurol. 1991 Aug;48(8):796-9 - PubMed
  5. Neurology. 2001 Nov 13;57(9):1669-74 - PubMed
  6. Neuron. 2002 Jan 31;33(3):341-55 - PubMed
  7. Psychiatry Res. 2006 Jun 30;147(1):79-89 - PubMed
  8. J Nucl Med. 1997 Nov;38(11):1818-23 - PubMed
  9. Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10 - PubMed
  10. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1998 Jan-Feb;22(1):153-65 - PubMed
  11. J Neurosci. 2002 May 1;22(9):3708-19 - PubMed
  12. Neuroimage. 2002 Nov;17(3):1087-100 - PubMed
  13. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1997 Aug;16(4):365-71 - PubMed
  14. Neuroimage. 2002 Oct;17(2):657-69 - PubMed
  15. Neuroimage. 2004 Jan;21(1):269-82 - PubMed
  16. Neuroimage. 2000 Apr;11(4):271-88 - PubMed
  17. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 1999;10 Suppl 1:80-4 - PubMed
  18. Neuroimage. 2004 Aug;22(4):1492-502 - PubMed
  19. J Nucl Med. 2004 Mar;45(3):402-8 - PubMed
  20. Clin Positron Imaging. 1998 Jun;1(3):145-159 - PubMed
  21. J Cogn Neurosci. 1996 Nov;8(6):566-87 - PubMed
  22. Neuroimage. 2005 Jul 15;26(4):1009-18 - PubMed
  23. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2001 Oct;16(7):653-67 - PubMed
  24. Neuroimage. 2002 Sep;17(1):373-84 - PubMed
  25. Neurology. 1998 Dec;51(6):1546-54 - PubMed
  26. Psychol Bull. 1979 Mar;86(2):420-8 - PubMed
  27. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2001 May;24(5):522-30 - PubMed
  28. Neuroimage. 2004 Oct;23(2):574-81 - PubMed
  29. Neuroimage. 1998 Nov;8(4):426-40 - PubMed
  30. Neuroimage. 2002 Jan;15(1):273-89 - PubMed
  31. Neurology. 2005 Jun 14;64(11):1860-7 - PubMed
  32. Neurology. 2003 Feb 25;60(4):601-5 - PubMed
  33. Neuroimage. 2000 Jun;11(6 Pt 1):805-21 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support