Impact of rigid and nonrigid registration on the determination of 18F-FDG PET-based tumour volume and standardized uptake value in patients with lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Assessment of the metabolically active tumour tissue by FDG PET is evolving for use in the diagnosis of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), in the planning of radiotherapy, and in follow-up and response evaluation. For exact evaluation accurate registration of PET and CT data is required. The registration process is usually based on rigid algorithms; however, nonrigid algorithms are increasingly being used. The influence of the registration method on FDG PET-based standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and metabolic tumour volume (MTV) definition has not yet been evaluated. We compared intra- and interindividual differences in SUV and MTV between rigid- and nonrigid-registered PET and CT acquired during different breathing manoeuvres. METHODS: The study group comprised 28 radiotherapy candidates with histologically proven NSCLC who underwent FDG PET acquisition and three CT acquisitions (expiration - EXP, inspiration - INS, mid-breath-hold - MID). All scans were registered with both a rigid (R) and a nonrigid (NR) procedure resulting in six fused datasets: R-INS, R-EXP, R-MID, NR-INS, NR-EXP and NR-MID. For the delineation of MTVs a contrast-oriented contouring algorithm developed in-house was used. To accelerate the delineation a semiautomatic software prototype was utilized. RESULTS: Tumour mean SUVmax did not differ for R and NR registration (R 17.5 ± 7, NR 17.4 ± 7; p=0.2). The mean MTV was higher by 3 ± 12 ml (p=0.02) in the NR group than in the R group, as was the mean tumour diameter (by 0.1 ± 0.2 cm; p<0.01). With respect to the three different breathing manoeuvres, there were no differences in MTV in the R group (p > 0.7). In intraindividual comparison there were no significant differences in MTVs concerning the registration pairs R-EXP (68 ± 88 ml) vs. NR-EXP (69 ± 85 ml) und R-MID (68 ± 86 ml) vs. NR-MID (69 ± 83 ml) (both p > 0.4). However, the MTVs were larger after NR registration during inspiration (R-INS 68 ± 82 vs. NR-INS 78 ± 93 ml; p=0.02). CONCLUSION: The use of nonrigid algorithms may lead to a change in MTV, whose extent is influenced by the breathing manoeuvre on CT. Nonrigid registration methods cannot be recommended for the definition of MTV if the CT scan is performed during inspiration. The choice of registration algorithm has no significant impact on SUVmax.

Nonrigid versus rigid registration of thoracic 18F-FDG PET and CT in patients with lung cancer: an intraindividual comparison of different breathing maneuvers.

UNLABELLED: In lung cancer, (18)F-FDG PET, CT, and (18)F-FDG PET/CT are used for noninvasive staging and therapy planning. Even with improved image registration techniques-especially in the modern hybrid PET/CT scanners-inaccuracies in the fusion process may occur, leading to errors in image interpretation. The aim of this study was to investigate by an intraindividual analysis whether, in comparison with a rigid algorithm, a nonrigid registration algorithm improves the quality of fusion between (18)F-FDG PET and CT. METHODS: Sixteen patients with histologically proven non-small cell lung cancer underwent a thoracic (18)F-FDG PET acquisition in radiotherapy treatment position and 3 CT acquisitions (expiration, inspiration, and mid breath-hold) on the same day. All scans were registered with rigid and nonrigid procedures, resulting in 6 fused datasets: rigid inspiration, rigid expiration, rigid mid breath-hold, nonrigid inspiration, nonrigid expiration, and nonrigid mid breath-hold. The quality of alignment was assessed by 3 experienced readers at 8 anatomic landmarks: lung apices, aortic arch, heart, spine, sternum, carina, diaphragm, and tumor using an alignment score ranging from 1 (no alignment) to 5 (exact alignment). RESULTS: Nonrigid PET/CT showed better alignment than rigid PET/CT (3.5 +/- 0.7 vs. 3.3 +/- 0.7, P < 0.001). Regarding the breathing maneuver, no difference between nonrigid mid breath-hold and rigid mid breath-hold was observed. In contrast, the alignment quality significantly improved from rigid expiration to nonrigid expiration (3.4 +/- 0.7 vs. 3.6 +/- 0.7, P < 0.001) and from rigid inspiration to nonrigid inspiration (3.1 +/- 0.7 vs. 3.3 +/- 0.7, P < 0.001). With regard to individual landmarks, an improvement in fusion quality through the use of nonrigid registration was obvious at the lung apices, carina, and aortic arch. CONCLUSION: The alignment quality of thoracic (18)F-FDG PET/CT exhibits a marked dependence on the breathing maneuver performed during the CT acquisition, as demonstrated in an intraindividual comparison. Nonrigid registration is a significant improvement over rigid registration if the CT is performed during full inspiration or full expiration. The best fusion results are obtained with the CT performed at mid breath-hold using rigid registration, without an improvement using nonrigid algorithms.