Abstract
Purpose
We propose and compare different registration approaches to align small-animal PET studies and a procedure to validate the results by means of objective registration consistency measurements.
Procedures
We have applied a registration algorithm based on information theory, using different approaches to mask the reference image. The registration consistency allows for the detection of incorrect registrations. This methodology has been evaluated on a test dataset (FDG-PET rat brain images).
Results
The results show that a multiresolution two-step registration approach based on the use of the whole image at the low resolution step, while masking the brain at the high resolution step, provides the best robustness (87.5% registration success) and highest accuracy (0.67-mm average).
Conclusions
The major advantages of our approach are minimal user interaction and automatic assessment of the registration error, avoiding visual inspection of the results, thus facilitating the accurate, objective, and rapid analysis of large groups of rodent PET images.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Friston KJ, Holmes AP, Worsley KJ et al (1995) Statistical parametric maps in functional imaging: a general linear approach. Hum Brain Mapp 2:189–210
Thompson PM, Woods RP, Mega MS et al (2000) Mathematical/computational challenges in creating deformable and probabilistic atlases of the human brain. Hum Brain Mapp 9(2):81–92
Friston KJ, Ashburner J, Frith C et al (1995) Spatial registration and normalization of images. Hum Brain Mapp 2:165–189
Rubins DJ, Melega WP, Lacan G et al (2003) Development and evaluation of an automated atlas-based image analysis method for microPET studies of the rat brain. Neuroimage 20(4):2100–2118
Gispert JD, Pascau J, Reig S et al (2003) Influence of the normalization template on the outcome of statistical parametric mapping of PET scans. Neuroimage 19(3):601–612
Toga AW, Thompson PM (2001) The role of image registration in brain mapping. Image Vis Comput 19(1–2):3–24
Pluim JP, Maintz JB, Viergever MA (2003) Mutual-information-based registration of medical images: a survey. IEEE Trans Med Imag 22(8):986–1004
Maintz JB, Viergever MA (1998) A survey of medical image registration. Med Image Anal 2(1):1–36
Vaquero JJ, Desco M, Pascau J et al (2001) PET, CT, and MR image registration of the rat brain and skull. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 48(4):1440–1445
Rowland DJ, Garbow JR, Laforest R et al (2005) Registration of F-18 FDG microPET and small-animal MRI. Nucl Med Biol 32(6):567–572
Fei BW, Wang HS, Muzic RF et al (2006) Deformable and rigid registration of MRI and microPET images for photodynamic therapy of cancer in mice. Med Phys 33(3):753–760
Woods RP, Grafton ST, Holmes CJ et al (1998) Automated image registration: I. General methods and intrasubject, intramodality validation. J Comput Assist Tomogr 22(1):139–152
Studholme C, Hill DLG, Hawkes DJ (1999) An overlap invariant entropy measure of 3D medical image alignment. Pattern Recogn 32(1):71–86
Maes F, Collignon A, Vandermeulen D et al (1997) Multimodality image registration by maximization of mutual information. IEEE Trans Med Imag 16(2):187–198
Thurfjell L, Lau YH, Andersson JL et al (2000) Improved efficiency for MRI-SPET registration based on mutual information. Eur J Nucl Med 27(7):847–856
Pluim JP, Maintz JB, Viergever MA (2000) Interpolation artefacts in mutual information based image registration. Comput Vis Image Underst 77(2):211–232
Tsao J (2003) Interpolation artifacts in multimodality image registration based on maximization of mutual information. IEEE Trans Med Imag 22(7):854–864
Maes F, Vandermeulen D, Suetens P (1999) Comparative evaluation of multiresolution optimization strategies for multimodality image registration by maximization of mutual information. Med Image Anal 3(4):373–386
Pascau J, Vaquero J, Abella M et al (2006) Multimodality workstation for small animal image visualization and analysis. Mol Imaging Biol 8(2):97–98
Hill DL, Batchelor PG, Holden M et al (2001) Medical image registration. Phys Med Biol 46(3):R1–R45
Holden M, Hill DL, Denton ER et al (2000) Voxel similarity measures for 3-D serial MR brain image registration. IEEE Trans Med Imag 19(2):94–102
Arun KS, Huang TS, Blostein SD (1987) Least-squares fitting of two 3-D point sets. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 9(5):698–700
Fitzpatrick JM, West JB, Maurer CR Jr (1998) Predicting error in rigid-body point-based registration. IEEE Trans Med Imag 17(5):694–702
Thanos PK, Michaelides M, Gispert JD et al (2008) Differences in response to food stimuli in a rat model of obesity: in-vivo assessment of brain glucose metabolism. Int J Obes (May 13, 2008)
Qi J, Leahy RM, Cherry SR et al (1998) High-resolution 3D Bayesian image reconstruction using the microPET small-animal scanner. Phys Med Biol 43(4):1001–1013
Ruangma A, Laforest R, Bai B et al (2004) Characterization of USC-MAP image reconstruction on MicroPET-R4. IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Conf Rec 6:3449–3453
Casteels C, Vermaelen P, Nuyts J et al (2006) Construction and evaluation of multitracer small-animal PET probabilistic atlases for voxel-based functional mapping of the rat brain. J Nucl Med 47(11):1858–1866
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by projects CIBER CB06/01/0079 (Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo) and CDTEAM (CENIT program, Ministerio de Industria). Further support came from NIAAA Intramural Research Program (AA 11034 and AA07574, AA07611) and the US Department of Energy (DE-AC02-98CH10886).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pascau, J., Gispert, J., Michaelides, M. et al. Automated Method for Small-Animal PET Image Registration with Intrinsic Validation. Mol Imaging Biol 11, 107–113 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-008-0166-z
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-008-0166-z