Fuzzy Tissue Classification for Non-Linear Patient-Specific Biomechanical Models for Whole-Body Image Registration

AbstractTo present the feasibility of a dynamic whole-body (DWB) 68Ga-DOTATOC-PET/CT acquisition in patients with well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (WD-NETs). Sixty-one patients who underwent a DWB 68Ga-DOTATOC-PET/CT for a histologically proven/highly suspected WD-NET were prospectively included. The acquisition consisted in single-bed dynamic acquisition centered on the heart, followed by the DWB and static acquisitions. For liver, spleen and tumor (1–5/patient), Ki values (in ml/min/100 ml) were calculated according to Patlak's analysis and tumor-to-liver (TLR-Ki) and tumor-to-spleen ratios (TSR-Ki) were recorded. Ki-based parameters were compared to static parameters (SUVmax/SUVmean, TLR/TSRmean, according to liver/spleen SUVmean), in the whole-cohort and according to the PET system (analog/digital). A correlation analysis between SUVmean/Ki was performed using linear and non-linear regressions. Ki-liver was not influenced by the PET system used, unlike SUVmax/SUVmean. The regression analysis showed a non-linear relation between Ki/SUVmean (R2 = 0.55,0.68 and 0.71 for liver, spleen and tumor uptake, respectively) and a linear relation between TLRmean/TLR-Ki (R2 = 0.75). These results were not affected by the PET system, on the contrary of the relation between TSRmean/TSR-Ki (R2 = 0.94 and 0.73 using linear and non-linear regressions in digital and analog systems, respectively). Our study is the first showing the feasibility of a DWB 68Ga-DOTATOC-PET/CT acquisition in WD-NETs.

Download Full-text

A method for evaluation of patient-specific lean body mass from limited-coverage CT images and its application in PERCIST: comparison with predictive equation

EJNMMI Physics ◽

10.1186/s40658-021-00358-7 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 8 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Jingjie Shang ◽

Zhiqiang Tan ◽

Yong Cheng ◽

Yongjin Tang ◽

Bin Guo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Lean Body Mass ◽

Body Mass ◽

Whole Body ◽

Patient Specific ◽

Predictive Equation ◽

Reference Standard ◽

Pet Ct ◽

Before And After ◽

Percist 1.0 ◽

Limited Coverage

Abstract Background Standardized uptake value (SUV) normalized by lean body mass ([LBM] SUL) is recommended as metric by PERCIST 1.0. The James predictive equation (PE) is a frequently used formula for LBM estimation, but may cause substantial error for an individual. The purpose of this study was to introduce a novel and reliable method for estimating LBM by limited-coverage (LC) CT images from PET/CT examinations and test its validity, then to analyse whether SUV normalised by LC-based LBM could change the PERCIST 1.0 response classifications, based on LBM estimated by the James PE. Methods First, 199 patients who received whole-body PET/CT examinations were retrospectively retrieved. A patient-specific LBM equation was developed based on the relationship between LC fat volumes (FVLC) and whole-body fat mass (FMWB). This equation was cross-validated with an independent sample of 97 patients who also received whole-body PET/CT examinations. Its results were compared with the measurement of LBM from whole-body CT (reference standard) and the results of the James PE. Then, 241 patients with solid tumours who underwent PET/CT examinations before and after treatment were retrospectively retrieved. The treatment responses were evaluated according to the PE-based and LC-based PERCIST 1.0. Concordance between them was assessed using Cohen’s κ coefficient and Wilcoxon’s signed-ranks test. The impact of differing LBM algorithms on PERCIST 1.0 classification was evaluated. Results The FVLC were significantly correlated with the FMWB (r=0.977). Furthermore, the results of LBM measurement evaluated with LC images were much closer to the reference standard than those obtained by the James PE. The PE-based and LC-based PERCIST 1.0 classifications were discordant in 27 patients (11.2%; κ = 0.823, P=0.837). These discordant patients’ percentage changes of peak SUL (SULpeak) were all in the interval above or below 10% from the threshold (±30%), accounting for 43.5% (27/62) of total patients in this region. The degree of variability is related to changes in LBM before and after treatment. Conclusions LBM algorithm-dependent variability in PERCIST 1.0 classification is a notable issue. SUV normalised by LC-based LBM could change PERCIST 1.0 response classifications based on LBM estimated by the James PE, especially for patients with a percentage variation of SULpeak close to the threshold.

Download Full-text