Cargando…

Uncertainty analysis of MR-PET image registration for precision neuro-PET imaging

Accurate regional brain quantitative PET measurements, particularly when using partial volume correction, rely on robust image registration between PET and MR images. We argue here that the precision, and hence the uncertainty, of MR-PET image registration is mainly driven by the registration implem...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Markiewicz, Pawel J., Matthews, Julian C., Ashburner, John, Cash, David M., Thomas, David L., De Vita, Enrico, Barnes, Anna, Cardoso, M. Jorge, Modat, Marc, Brown, Richard, Thielemans, Kris, da Costa-Luis, Casper, Lopes Alves, Isadora, Gispert, Juan Domingo, Schmidt, Mark E., Marsden, Paul, Hammers, Alexander, Ourselin, Sebastien, Barkhof, Frederik
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Academic Press 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8204268/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33588030
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.117821
_version_ 1783708318415454208
author Markiewicz, Pawel J.
Matthews, Julian C.
Ashburner, John
Cash, David M.
Thomas, David L.
De Vita, Enrico
Barnes, Anna
Cardoso, M. Jorge
Modat, Marc
Brown, Richard
Thielemans, Kris
da Costa-Luis, Casper
Lopes Alves, Isadora
Gispert, Juan Domingo
Schmidt, Mark E.
Marsden, Paul
Hammers, Alexander
Ourselin, Sebastien
Barkhof, Frederik
author_facet Markiewicz, Pawel J.
Matthews, Julian C.
Ashburner, John
Cash, David M.
Thomas, David L.
De Vita, Enrico
Barnes, Anna
Cardoso, M. Jorge
Modat, Marc
Brown, Richard
Thielemans, Kris
da Costa-Luis, Casper
Lopes Alves, Isadora
Gispert, Juan Domingo
Schmidt, Mark E.
Marsden, Paul
Hammers, Alexander
Ourselin, Sebastien
Barkhof, Frederik
author_sort Markiewicz, Pawel J.
collection PubMed
description Accurate regional brain quantitative PET measurements, particularly when using partial volume correction, rely on robust image registration between PET and MR images. We argue here that the precision, and hence the uncertainty, of MR-PET image registration is mainly driven by the registration implementation and the quality of PET images due to their lower resolution and higher noise compared to the structural MR images. We propose a dedicated uncertainty analysis for quantifying the precision of MR-PET registration, centred around the bootstrap resampling of PET list-mode events to generate multiple PET image realisations with different noise (count) levels. The effects of PET image reconstruction parameters, such as the use of attenuation and scatter corrections and different number of iterations, on the precision and accuracy of MR-PET registration were investigated. In addition, the performance of four software packages with their default settings for rigid inter-modality image registration were considered: NiftyReg, Vinci, FSL and SPM. Four distinct PET image distributions made of two early time frames (similar to cortical FDG) and two late frames using two amyloid PET dynamic acquisitions of one amyloid positive and one amyloid negative participants were investigated. For the investigated four PET frames, the biggest impact on the uncertainty was observed between registration software packages (up to 10-fold difference in precision) followed by the reconstruction parameters. On average, the lowest uncertainty for different PET frames and brain regions was observed with SPM and two iterations of fully quantitative image reconstruction. The observed uncertainty for the varying PET count-level (from 5% to 60%) was slightly lower than for the reconstruction parameters. We also observed that the registration uncertainty in quantitative PET analysis depends on amyloid status of the considered PET frames, with increased uncertainty (up to three times) when using post-reconstruction partial volume correction. This analysis is applicable for PET data obtained from either PET/MR or PET/CT scanners.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8204268
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Academic Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82042682021-06-21 Uncertainty analysis of MR-PET image registration for precision neuro-PET imaging Markiewicz, Pawel J. Matthews, Julian C. Ashburner, John Cash, David M. Thomas, David L. De Vita, Enrico Barnes, Anna Cardoso, M. Jorge Modat, Marc Brown, Richard Thielemans, Kris da Costa-Luis, Casper Lopes Alves, Isadora Gispert, Juan Domingo Schmidt, Mark E. Marsden, Paul Hammers, Alexander Ourselin, Sebastien Barkhof, Frederik Neuroimage Article Accurate regional brain quantitative PET measurements, particularly when using partial volume correction, rely on robust image registration between PET and MR images. We argue here that the precision, and hence the uncertainty, of MR-PET image registration is mainly driven by the registration implementation and the quality of PET images due to their lower resolution and higher noise compared to the structural MR images. We propose a dedicated uncertainty analysis for quantifying the precision of MR-PET registration, centred around the bootstrap resampling of PET list-mode events to generate multiple PET image realisations with different noise (count) levels. The effects of PET image reconstruction parameters, such as the use of attenuation and scatter corrections and different number of iterations, on the precision and accuracy of MR-PET registration were investigated. In addition, the performance of four software packages with their default settings for rigid inter-modality image registration were considered: NiftyReg, Vinci, FSL and SPM. Four distinct PET image distributions made of two early time frames (similar to cortical FDG) and two late frames using two amyloid PET dynamic acquisitions of one amyloid positive and one amyloid negative participants were investigated. For the investigated four PET frames, the biggest impact on the uncertainty was observed between registration software packages (up to 10-fold difference in precision) followed by the reconstruction parameters. On average, the lowest uncertainty for different PET frames and brain regions was observed with SPM and two iterations of fully quantitative image reconstruction. The observed uncertainty for the varying PET count-level (from 5% to 60%) was slightly lower than for the reconstruction parameters. We also observed that the registration uncertainty in quantitative PET analysis depends on amyloid status of the considered PET frames, with increased uncertainty (up to three times) when using post-reconstruction partial volume correction. This analysis is applicable for PET data obtained from either PET/MR or PET/CT scanners. Academic Press 2021-05-15 /pmc/articles/PMC8204268/ /pubmed/33588030 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.117821 Text en © 2021 The Author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Markiewicz, Pawel J.
Matthews, Julian C.
Ashburner, John
Cash, David M.
Thomas, David L.
De Vita, Enrico
Barnes, Anna
Cardoso, M. Jorge
Modat, Marc
Brown, Richard
Thielemans, Kris
da Costa-Luis, Casper
Lopes Alves, Isadora
Gispert, Juan Domingo
Schmidt, Mark E.
Marsden, Paul
Hammers, Alexander
Ourselin, Sebastien
Barkhof, Frederik
Uncertainty analysis of MR-PET image registration for precision neuro-PET imaging
title Uncertainty analysis of MR-PET image registration for precision neuro-PET imaging
title_full Uncertainty analysis of MR-PET image registration for precision neuro-PET imaging
title_fullStr Uncertainty analysis of MR-PET image registration for precision neuro-PET imaging
title_full_unstemmed Uncertainty analysis of MR-PET image registration for precision neuro-PET imaging
title_short Uncertainty analysis of MR-PET image registration for precision neuro-PET imaging
title_sort uncertainty analysis of mr-pet image registration for precision neuro-pet imaging
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8204268/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33588030
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.117821
work_keys_str_mv AT markiewiczpawelj uncertaintyanalysisofmrpetimageregistrationforprecisionneuropetimaging
AT matthewsjulianc uncertaintyanalysisofmrpetimageregistrationforprecisionneuropetimaging
AT ashburnerjohn uncertaintyanalysisofmrpetimageregistrationforprecisionneuropetimaging
AT cashdavidm uncertaintyanalysisofmrpetimageregistrationforprecisionneuropetimaging
AT thomasdavidl uncertaintyanalysisofmrpetimageregistrationforprecisionneuropetimaging
AT devitaenrico uncertaintyanalysisofmrpetimageregistrationforprecisionneuropetimaging
AT barnesanna uncertaintyanalysisofmrpetimageregistrationforprecisionneuropetimaging
AT cardosomjorge uncertaintyanalysisofmrpetimageregistrationforprecisionneuropetimaging
AT modatmarc uncertaintyanalysisofmrpetimageregistrationforprecisionneuropetimaging
AT brownrichard uncertaintyanalysisofmrpetimageregistrationforprecisionneuropetimaging
AT thielemanskris uncertaintyanalysisofmrpetimageregistrationforprecisionneuropetimaging
AT dacostaluiscasper uncertaintyanalysisofmrpetimageregistrationforprecisionneuropetimaging
AT lopesalvesisadora uncertaintyanalysisofmrpetimageregistrationforprecisionneuropetimaging
AT gispertjuandomingo uncertaintyanalysisofmrpetimageregistrationforprecisionneuropetimaging
AT schmidtmarke uncertaintyanalysisofmrpetimageregistrationforprecisionneuropetimaging
AT marsdenpaul uncertaintyanalysisofmrpetimageregistrationforprecisionneuropetimaging
AT hammersalexander uncertaintyanalysisofmrpetimageregistrationforprecisionneuropetimaging
AT ourselinsebastien uncertaintyanalysisofmrpetimageregistrationforprecisionneuropetimaging
AT barkhoffrederik uncertaintyanalysisofmrpetimageregistrationforprecisionneuropetimaging