Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
      • JNMT Supplement
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Institutional and Non-member
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNMT
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA Requirements
  • Info
    • Permissions
    • Continuing Education
    • Advertisers
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Contact
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNMT
    • JNM
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
  • SNMMI
    • JNMT
    • JNM
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Institutional and Non-member
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNMT
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA Requirements
  • Info
    • Permissions
    • Continuing Education
    • Advertisers
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Contact
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • Follow SNMMI on Twitter
  • Visit SNMMI on Facebook
  • Join SNMMI on LinkedIn
  • Subscribe to JNMT RSS feeds
Research ArticleIMAGING

Semiautomatic Region-of-Interest Validation at the Femur in 18F-Fluoride PET/CT

Tanuj Puri, Glen M. Blake, Kathleen M. Curran, Hamish Carr, Amelia E.B. Moore, Niall Colgan, Martin J. O’Connell, Paul K. Marsden, Ignac Fogelman and Michelle L. Frost
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology September 2012, 40 (3) 168-174; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.111.100107
Tanuj Puri
1PET Imaging Centre, Imaging Sciences and Biomedical Engineering, St. Thomas’ Hospital, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
2School of Medicine and Medical Sciences, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Glen M. Blake
3Osteoporosis Screening and Research Unit, Imaging Sciences and Biomedical Engineering, Guy’s Hospital, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kathleen M. Curran
2School of Medicine and Medical Sciences, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hamish Carr
4University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Amelia E.B. Moore
3Osteoporosis Screening and Research Unit, Imaging Sciences and Biomedical Engineering, Guy’s Hospital, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Niall Colgan
2School of Medicine and Medical Sciences, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
5College of Medicine, Swansea University, Wales, United Kingdom; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Martin J. O’Connell
6Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paul K. Marsden
1PET Imaging Centre, Imaging Sciences and Biomedical Engineering, St. Thomas’ Hospital, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ignac Fogelman
3Osteoporosis Screening and Research Unit, Imaging Sciences and Biomedical Engineering, Guy’s Hospital, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michelle L. Frost
3Osteoporosis Screening and Research Unit, Imaging Sciences and Biomedical Engineering, Guy’s Hospital, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The assessment of regional skeletal metabolism using 18F-fluoride PET (18F-PET) requires segmentation of the tissue region of interest (ROI). The aim of this study was to validate a novel approach to define multiple ROIs at the proximal femur similar to those used in dual x-ray absorptiometry. Regions were first drawn on low-dose CT images acquired as a routine part of the PET/CT study and transferred to the 18F-PET images for the quantitative analysis of bone turnover. Methods: Four healthy postmenopausal women with a mean age of 65.1 y (range, 61.8–70.0 y), and with no history of metabolic bone disorder and not currently being administered treatment affecting skeletal metabolism, underwent dynamic 18F-PET/CT at the hip with an injected activity of 180 MBq. The ROIs at the proximal femur included femoral shaft, femoral neck, and total hip and were segmented using both a semiautomatic method and manually by 8 experts at manual ROI delineation. The mean of the 8 manually drawn ROIs was considered the gold standard against which the performances of the semiautomatic and manual methods were compared in terms of percentage overlap and percentage difference. The time to draw the ROIs was also compared. Results: The percentage overlaps between the gold standard and the semiautomatic ROIs for total hip, femoral neck, and femoral shaft were 86.1%, 37.8%, and 96.1%, respectively, and the percentage differences were 14.5%, 89.7%, and 4.7%, respectively. In the same order, the percentage overlap between the gold standard and the manual ROIs were 85.2%, 39.1%, and 95.2%, respectively, and the percentage differences were 19.9%, 91.6%, and 12.2%, respectively. The semiautomatic method was approximately 9.5, 2.5, and 67 times faster than the manual method for segmenting total-hip, femoral-neck, and femoral-shaft ROIs, respectively. Conclusion: We have developed and validated a semiautomatic procedure whereby ROIs at the hip are defined using the CT component of an 18F-PET/CT scan. The percentage overlap and percentage difference results between the semiautomatic method and the manual method for ROI delineation were similar. Two advantages of the semiautomatic method are that it is significantly quicker and eliminates some of the variability associated with operator or reader input. The tube current used for the CT scan was associated with an effective dose 8 times lower than that associated with a typical diagnostic CT scan. These results suggest that it is possible to segment bone ROIs from low-dose CT for later transfer to PET in a single PET/CT procedure without the need for an additional high-resolution CT scan.

  • 18F-PET/CT
  • femur
  • bone
  • region of interest
  • validation

Footnotes

  • Published online Aug. 14, 2012.

View Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology: 40 (3)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
Vol. 40, Issue 3
September 1, 2012
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Semiautomatic Region-of-Interest Validation at the Femur in 18F-Fluoride PET/CT
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology web site.
Citation Tools
Semiautomatic Region-of-Interest Validation at the Femur in 18F-Fluoride PET/CT
Tanuj Puri, Glen M. Blake, Kathleen M. Curran, Hamish Carr, Amelia E.B. Moore, Niall Colgan, Martin J. O’Connell, Paul K. Marsden, Ignac Fogelman, Michelle L. Frost
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology Sep 2012, 40 (3) 168-174; DOI: 10.2967/jnmt.111.100107

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Semiautomatic Region-of-Interest Validation at the Femur in 18F-Fluoride PET/CT
Tanuj Puri, Glen M. Blake, Kathleen M. Curran, Hamish Carr, Amelia E.B. Moore, Niall Colgan, Martin J. O’Connell, Paul K. Marsden, Ignac Fogelman, Michelle L. Frost
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology Sep 2012, 40 (3) 168-174; DOI: 10.2967/jnmt.111.100107
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • A Practical Technique to Improve Visualization of Sentinel Nodes in the Axillary Region on Breast Lymphoscintigraphy: Medial Breast Traction by Patient
  • Determining the Minimal Required Ultra-Low-Dose CT Dose Level for Reliable Attenuation Correction of 18F-FDG PET/CT: A Phantom Study
  • Comparing the Patient Experience Between a 360° γ-Camera and a Conventional Dual-Head γ-Camera
Show more Imaging

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2022 Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology

Powered by HighWire