S Vauclin et al 2009 Phys. Med. Biol. 54 6901 doi:10.1088/0031-9155/54/22/010
S Vauclin1,2, K Doyeux1,2, S Hapdey1,3, A Edet-Sanson1,3, P Vera1,3 and I Gardin1,3
Show affiliationsAn iterative generic algorithm has been developed to compare three thresholding models used to delineate gross tumour volume on 18F-FDG PET images. 3D volume was extracted and characteristic parameters were measured. Three fitting models using different parameters were studied: model 1 (volume, contrast), model 2 (contrast) and model 3 (SUV). The calibration was performed using a cylindrical phantom filled with hot spheres. To validate the models, two other phantoms were used. The calibration procedure showed a better fitting model for model 1 (R2 from 0.94 to 1.00) than for model 3 (0.95) and model 2 (0.69). The validation study shows that model 3 yielded large volume measurement errors. Models 1 and 2 gave close results with no significant differences. Model 2 was preferred because it presents less error dispersion and needs fewer characteristic parameters, making it easier to implement. Our results show the importance of developing a generic algorithm to compare the performances of fitting models objectively and to validate results on other phantoms than the ones used during the calibration process to avoid methodological biases.
Issue 22 (21 November 2009)
Received 3 June 2009, in final form 6 October 2009
Published 28 October 2009
S Vauclin et al 2009 Phys. Med. Biol. 54 6901
R Gaudoin et al 2002 J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 14 8787
A M Stoneham et al 2002 J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 14 9877
C Géronimi et al 2001 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 34 10109
Y Ozeki and H Nishimori 1993 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 26 3399
O Céspedes et al 2004 J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 16 L155
R L Becker and A D MacKellar 1984 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Phys. 17 3923
Julien Oster et al 2009 Physiol. Meas. 30 1381
Heinz-Peter Breuer 2006 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 39 11847
H Saint-Guirons and P Xans 1981 J. Phys. E: Sci. Instrum. 14 1332