HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gutman, F. Articles by Véra, P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gutman, F. Articles by Véra, P. Social Bookmarking                      What's this? Hotlight (NEW!) What's Hotlight?

Evaluation of a Rigid Registration Method of Lung Perfusion SPECT and Thoracic CT

¹ Department of Nuclear Medicine, Rouen University Hospital Charles-Nicolle and Henri Becquerel Center, Laboratoire Universitaire QUANT.I.F., Rouen, France.
² Department of Radiation Therapy and Radiophysics, Henri Becquerel Center, Laboratoire Universitaire QUANT.I.F., Rouen, France.
³ GE Healthcare, Israel.
⁴ Service of Radiology, Henri Becquerel Center, Laboratoire Universitaire QUANT.I.F., Rouen, France.

OBJECTIVE. The objective of our study was to evaluate a rigid registration method in lung perfusion SPECT using thoracic CT as a standard.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The reproducibility of markers selection and the robustness of the method were assessed on a torso phantom. The accuracy of registration regarding the number and location of markers and the breathing state during CT was evaluated on eight patients using 10 external markers placed around the thorax before SPECT and CT acquisitions. The accuracy of registration was assessed using the mean errors (ME) between 10 markers after registration.

RESULTS. Registration using external markers on a phantom was accurate (ME, < 3 mm) when rotation was less than 40° (p = 0.02). The accuracy of registration improved markedly from four to six markers for phantom (5.5-3.6 mm) and patients (11.2-9.5 mm) and then remained constant up to 10 markers. The ME was less when using markers that well encompassed the thorax for phantom and patients (p = 0.02 and p = 0.05, respectively). The use of four anatomic markers was not accurate (ME, 20 mm).

CONCLUSION. The registration method is reproducible and accurate, and six external markers were required to get an ME of less than 10 mm in patients.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. Suga, Y. Kawakami, H. Iwanaga, O. Tokuda, and N. Matsunaga Automated Breath-Hold Perfusion SPECT/CT Fusion Images of the Lungs Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2007; 189(2): 455 - 463. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Harris, D. Bailey, S. Miles, E. Bailey, K. Rogers, P. Roach, P. Thomas, M. Hensley, and G. G. King Objective Analysis of Tomographic Ventilation-Perfusion Scintigraphy in Pulmonary Embolism Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., June 1, 2007; 175(11): 1173 - 1180. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Petersson, A. Sanchez-Crespo, S. A. Larsson, and M. Mure Physiological imaging of the lung: single-photon-emission computed tomography (SPECT) J Appl Physiol, January 1, 2007; 102(1): 468 - 476. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]