Analysis of values and differences of multi-modality registration and normalization methods in 18F-AV45 PET imaging for Alzheimer′s disease
10.3760/cma.j.cn321828-20211227-00453
- VernacularTitle:多模态配准及标准化方法在阿尔茨海默病 18F－AV45 PET脑显像中的价值与差异分析
- Author:
Hongbo FENG
1
;
Yuanfang JIANG
;
Jinghui XIE
;
Xuemei DU
Author Information
1. 大连医科大学附属第一医院核医学科，大连 116011
- Keywords:
Alzheimer disease;
Amyloid;
Image processing, computer-assisted;
Positron-emission tomography
- From:
Chinese Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
2023;43(7):385-390
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To explore values and differences of multi-modality image registration and normalization methods in 18F-AV45 PET quantitative analysis of Alzheimer′s disease (AD). Methods:Twenty AD patients (10 males, 10 females; age (77.0±5.8) years) and 20 normal controls (NC; 8 males, 12 females; age (75.2±4.8) years) from the AD neuroimaging initiative (ADNI) open database of the National Institute on Aging were analyzed. β-amyloid (Aβ) deposition (positive/negative) was assessed by visual analysis. The SUV ratio (SUVr) in each brain region and individual average SUVr were calculated using template normalization method (M1), normalization after registration with 18F-FDG PET or MRI image (M2 or M3) respectively with the cerebellum as the reference area. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to complete the reliability between methods, and independent-sample t test and one-way repeated measures analysis of variance were used to compare the differences of quantitative indexes between different groups and different methods. ROC curve analysis was used to compare the diagnostic efficacy in distinguishing AD and NC, Aβ positive and negative cases. Results:There were 15 and 6 patients with positive Aβ deposition in AD group and in NC group respectively by visual analysis. The SUVrs of three methods were with good consistency (ICC=0.82, P<0.001), and the differences among individual average SUVrs (1.29±0.17, 1.36±0.23, 1.45±0.24) were significant ( F=68.78, P<0.001). There were significant differences between AD group (1.39±0.17, 1.48±0.24, 1.58±0.25) and NC group (1.20±0.10, 1.24±0.15, 1.33±0.16; t values: 3.55-4.33, all P<0.05), Aβ positive group (1.39±0.16, 1.50±0.21, 1.59±0.23) and negative group (1.19±0.11, 1.21±0.14, 1.31±0.15; t values: 4.58, 5.11, 4.41, all P<0.001), and the individual average SUVr of M3 was higher (both P<0.001). The AUCs of distinguishing Aβ positive and negative deposition of M1-M3 were 0.86, 0.88, 0.84 and the thresholds of SUVrs were 1.29, 1.37, 1.52, respectively. Conclusion:The three multi-modality registration and normalization methods are reliable methods for quantitation of 18F-AV45 PET imaging with certain differences, and should be selected carefully based on data conditions in practice.
