An algorithm for longitudinal registration of PET/CT images acquired during neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: preliminary results

Xia Li, Richard G Abramson, Lori R Arlinghaus, Anuradha Bapsi Chakravarthy, Vandana Abramson, Ingrid Mayer, Jaime Farley, Dominique Delbeke, Thomas E Yankeelov, Xia Li, Richard G Abramson, Lori R Arlinghaus, Anuradha Bapsi Chakravarthy, Vandana Abramson, Ingrid Mayer, Jaime Farley, Dominique Delbeke, Thomas E Yankeelov

Abstract

Background: By providing estimates of tumor glucose metabolism, 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) can potentially characterize the response of breast tumors to treatment. To assess therapy response, serial measurements of FDG-PET parameters (derived from static and/or dynamic images) can be obtained at different time points during the course of treatment. However, most studies track the changes in average parameter values obtained from the whole tumor, thereby discarding all spatial information manifested in tumor heterogeneity. Here, we propose a method whereby serially acquired FDG-PET breast data sets can be spatially co-registered to enable the spatial comparison of parameter maps at the voxel level.

Methods: The goal is to optimally register normal tissues while simultaneously preventing tumor distortion. In order to accomplish this, we constructed a PET support device to enable PET/CT imaging of the breasts of ten patients in the prone position and applied a mutual information-based rigid body registration followed by a non-rigid registration. The non-rigid registration algorithm extended the adaptive bases algorithm (ABA) by incorporating a tumor volume-preserving constraint, which computed the Jacobian determinant over the tumor regions as outlined on the PET/CT images, into the cost function. We tested this approach on ten breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Results: By both qualitative and quantitative evaluation, our constrained algorithm yielded significantly less tumor distortion than the unconstrained algorithm: considering the tumor volume determined from standard uptake value maps, the post-registration median tumor volume changes, and the 25th and 75th quantiles were 3.42% (0%, 13.39%) and 16.93% (9.21%, 49.93%) for the constrained and unconstrained algorithms, respectively (p = 0.002), while the bending energy (a measure of the smoothness of the deformation) was 0.0015 (0.0005, 0.012) and 0.017 (0.005, 0.044), respectively (p = 0.005).

Conclusion: The results indicate that the constrained ABA algorithm can accurately align prone breast FDG-PET images acquired at different time points while keeping the tumor from being substantially compressed or distorted.

Trial registration: NCT00474604.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Our own support for prone breast PET/CT images. It allows for the breasts to lie pendant during the scanning procedure, therefore greatly enhancing the ability to perform longitudinal registration. Typical breast PET/CT is performed in the supine position which results in less reproducible patient positioning between scan sessions.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The scheme for applying the algorithm to register the PET/CT. The CT data obtained during t1 and t2 are aligned via the proposed registration algorithm (steps A and B) to the CT images acquired at t3. The resulting DF are then applied to the corresponding PET images to yield co-registered longitudinal PET data (steps C and D).
Figure 3
Figure 3
A representative patient displaying the results of the three registration algorithms. The first three rows correspond to the three time points, and the three columns show the results after rigid body registration, after unconstrained ABA registration (ABA), and with constrained ABA registration (ABA_CON), respectively. In the fourth row, the first panel displays the deformation field generated by the ABA when the images at t1 are registered to the images at t3, while the second panel shows the result using the ABA_CON; the third and fourth panels display similar data when the images at t2 are registered to the images at t3, respectively. The green circle shows the tumor location. The contour of the CT image at t3 is drawn and then copied to other images to facilitate the comparison.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Results of the three registration algorithms for another patient with similar setup with Figure3.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Ten examples from ten patients illustrating the matching accuracy of the registration algorithm. Axial CT slices obtained at t1 or t2 (colored in blue) are overlaid on the corresponding images obtained at t3 (gray) in a checkerboard pattern to facilitate assessments of the registration performance. Note that the structural boundaries between blue and gray images are connected accurately, indicating a good performance of the registration algorithm.

References

    1. Berriolo-Riedinger A, Touzery C, Riedinger JM, Toubeau M, Coudert B, Arnould L, Boichot C, Cochet A, Fumoleau P, Brunotte F. [18F]FDG-PET predicts complete pathological response of breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:1915–1924. doi: 10.1007/s00259-007-0459-5.
    1. Kim SJ, Kim SK, Lee ES, Ro J, Kang S. Predictive value of [18F]FDG PET for pathological response of breast cancer to neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Oncol. 2004;15:1352–1357. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdh345.
    1. Tiling R, Linke R, Untch M, Richter A, Fieber S, Brinkbaumer K, Tatsch K, Hahn K. 18F-FDG PET and 99mTc-sestamibi scintimammography for monitoring breast cancer response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a comparative study. Eur J Nucl Med. 2001;28:711–720. doi: 10.1007/s002590100539.
    1. Dose Schwarz J, Bader M, Jenicke L, Hemminger G, Janicke F, Avril N. Early prediction of response to chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer using sequential 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:1144–1150.
    1. Lucignani G, Paganelli G, Bombardieri E. The use of standardized uptake values for assessing FDG uptake with PET in oncology: a clinical perspective. Nucl Med Commun. 2004;25:651–656. doi: 10.1097/01.mnm.0000134329.30912.49.
    1. Zasadny KR, Wahl RL. Standardized uptake values of normal tissues at PET with 2-[fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose: variations with body weight and a method for correction. Radiology. 1993;189:847–850.
    1. Doot RK, Dunnwald LK, Schubert EK, Muzi M, Peterson LM, Kinahan PE, Kurland BF, Mankoff DA. Dynamic and static approaches to quantifying 18F-FDG uptake for measuring cancer response to therapy, including the effect of granulocyte CSF. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:920–925. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.106.037382.
    1. Partridge SC, Vanantwerp RK, Doot RK, Chai X, Kurland BF, Eby PR, Specht JM, Dunnwald LK, Schubert EK, Lehman CD, Mankoff DA. Association between serial dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and dynamic 18F-FDG PET measures in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;32:1124–1131. doi: 10.1002/jmri.22362.
    1. Cheebsumon P, van Velden FH, Yaqub M, Hoekstra CJ, Velasquez LM, Hayes W, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA, Boellaard R. Measurement of metabolic tumour volume: static versus dynamic FDG scans. EJNMMI Res. 2011;1:35. doi: 10.1186/2191-219X-1-35.
    1. Tateishi U, Miyake M, Nagaoka T, Terauchi T, Kubota K, Kinoshita T, Daisaki H, Macapinlac HA. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: prediction of pathologic response with PET/CT and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging–prospective assessment. Radiology. 2012;263:53–63. doi: 10.1148/radiol.12111177.
    1. Choi JH, Lim HI, Lee SK, Kim WW, Kim SM, Cho E, Ko EY, Han BK, Park YH, Ahn JS, Im YH, Lee JE, Yang JH, Nam SJ. The role of PET CT to evaluate the response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced breast cancer: comparison with ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging. J Surg Oncol. 2010;102:392–397.
    1. Maday P, Khurd P, Ladic L, Schnall M, Rosen M, Davatzikos C, Kamen A. In: Medical Computer Vision. Volume 6533. 1. Menze B, Langs G, Tu Z, Criminisi A, editor. Berlin: Springer; 2011. Imaging as a Surrogate for the Early Prediction and Assessment of Treatment Response through the Analysis of 4-D Texture Ensembles (ISEPARATE) pp. 164–173.
    1. Padhani AR, Hayes C, Assersohn L, Powles T, Makris A, Suckling J, Leach MO, Husband JE. Prediction of clinicopathologic response of breast cancer to primary chemotherapy at contrast-enhanced MR imaging: initial clinical results. Radiology. 2006;239:361–374. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2392021099.
    1. Li X, Dawant BM, Welch EB, Chakravarthy AB, Freehardt D, Mayer I, Kelley M, Meszoely I, Gore JC, Yankeelov TE. A nonrigid registration algorithm for longitudinal breast MR images and the analysis of breast tumor response. Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;27:1258–1270. doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2009.05.007.
    1. Li X, Dawant BM, Welch EB, Chakravarthy AB, Xu L, Mayer I, Kelley M, Meszoely I, Means-Powell J, Gore JC, Yankeelov TE. Validation of an algorithm for the nonrigid registration of longitudinal breast MR images using realistic phantoms. Med Phys. 2010;37:2541–2552. doi: 10.1118/1.3414035.
    1. Tixier F, Hatt M, Le Rest CC, Le Pogam A, Corcos L, Visvikis D. Reproducibility of tumor uptake heterogeneity characterization through textural feature analysis in 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:693–700. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.111.099127.
    1. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, Verweij J, Van Glabbeke M, van Oosterom AT, Christian MC, Gwyther SG. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:205–216. doi: 10.1093/jnci/92.3.205.
    1. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, Dancey J, Arbuck S, Gwyther S, Mooney M, Rubinstein L, Shankar L, Dodd L, Kaplan R, Lacombe D, Verweij J. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1) Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228–247. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026.
    1. van Velden FH, van Beers P, Nuyts J, Velasquez LM, Hayes W, Lammertsma AA, Boellaard R, Loeckx D. Effects of rigid and non-rigid image registration on test-retest variability of quantitative [18F]FDG PET/CT studies. EJNMMI Res. 2012;2:10. doi: 10.1186/2191-219X-2-10.
    1. Moy L, Noz ME, Maguire GQ Jr, Melsaether A, Deans AE, Murphy-Walcott AD, Ponzo F. Role of fusion of prone FDG-PET and magnetic resonance imaging of the breasts in the evaluation of breast cancer. Breast J. 2010;16:369–376.
    1. Moy L, Noz ME, Maguire GQ Jr, Ponzo F, Deans AE, Murphy-Walcott AD, Kramer EL. Prone mammoPET acquisition improves the ability to fuse MRI and PET breast scans. Clin Nucl Med. 2007;32:194–198. doi: 10.1097/01.rlu.0000255055.10177.80.
    1. Moy L, Ponzo F, Noz ME, Maguire GQ, Jr, Murphy-Walcott AD, Deans AE, Kitazono MT, Travascio L, Kramer EL. J Nucl Med. 2007. pp. 528–537.
    1. Maes F, Collignon A, Vandermeulen D, Marchal G, Suetens P. Multimodality image registration by maximization of mutual information. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1997;16:187–198. doi: 10.1109/42.563664.
    1. Rohde GK, Aldroubi A, Dawant BM. The adaptive bases algorithm for intensity-based nonrigid image registration. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2003;22:1470–1479. doi: 10.1109/TMI.2003.819299.
    1. Wu Z. Multivariate compactly supported positive definite radial functions. Adv Comput Math. 1995;4:283–292. doi: 10.1007/BF03177517.
    1. Drever L, Roa W, McEwan A, Robinson D. Iterative threshold segmentation for PET target volume delineation. Med Phys. 2007;34:1253–1265. doi: 10.1118/1.2712043.
    1. Biehl KJ, Kong FM, Dehdashti F, Jin JY, Mutic S, El Naqa I, Siegel BA, Bradley JD. 18F-FDG PET definition of gross tumor volume for radiotherapy of non-small cell lung cancer: is a single standardized uptake value threshold approach appropriate? J Nucl Med. 2006;47:1808–1812.
    1. Miller TR, Grigsby PW. Measurement of tumor volume by PET to evaluate prognosis in patients with advanced cervical cancer treated by radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;53:353–359. doi: 10.1016/S0360-3016(02)02705-0.
    1. Bradley J, Thorstad WL, Mutic S, Miller TR, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA, Bosch W, Bertrand RJ. Impact of FDG-PET on radiation therapy volume delineation in non-small-cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;59:78–86. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2003.10.044.
    1. Brianzoni E, Rossi G, Ancidei S, Berbellini A, Capoccetti F, Cidda C, D'Avenia P, Fattori S, Montini GC, Valentini G, Proietti A, Algranati C. Radiotherapy planning: PET/CT scanner performances in the definition of gross tumour volume and clinical target volume. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32:1392–1399. doi: 10.1007/s00259-005-1845-5.
    1. Abramson RG, Mavi A, Cermik T, Basu S, Wehrli NE, Houseni M, Mishra S, Udupa J, Lakhani P, Maidment AD, Torigian DA, Alavi A. Age-related structural and functional changes in the breast: multimodality correlation with digital mammography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography. Semin Nucl Med. 2007;37:146–153. doi: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2007.01.003.
    1. O'Connor JP, Rose CJ, Jackson A, Watson Y, Cheung S, Maders F, Whitcher BJ, Roberts C, Buonaccorsi GA, Thompson G, Clamp AR, Jayson GC, Parker GJ. DCE-MRI biomarkers of tumour heterogeneity predict CRC liver metastasis shrinkage following bevacizumab and FOLFOX-6. Br J Cancer. 2011;105:139–145. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2011.191.
    1. Li X, Arlinghaus LR, Chakravarthy A, Farley J, Mayer I, Abramson V, Kelley M, Meszoely I, Means-Powell J, Yankeelov TE. In: Biomedical Image Registration. Volume 7359. Dawant B, Christensen GE, Fitzpatrick JM, Rueckert D, editor. New York: Springer; 2012. Early DCE-MRI changes after longitudinal registration may predict breast cancer response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy; pp. 229–235.
    1. Hamstra DA, Galban CJ, Meyer CR, Johnson TD, Sundgren PC, Tsien C, Lawrence TS, Junck L, Ross DJ, Rehemtulla A, Ross BD, Chenevert TL. Functional diffusion map as an early imaging biomarker for high-grade glioma: correlation with conventional radiologic response and overall survival. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3387–3394. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.15.2363.
    1. Li X, Arlinghaus LR, Chakravarthy A, Welch EB, Farley J, Mayer I, Abramson V, Kelley M, Meszoely I, Means-Powell J, Grau AM, Bhave S, Yankeelov TE. Voxel-based analysis of early DCE-MRI changes may predict the response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients. Proc Intl Soc Mag Reson Med (ISMRM) 2012;20:1465.

Source: PubMed

3
Se inscrever