Purpose The purpose of this educational report is to provide an overview of the present state-of-the-art PET auto-segmentation (PET-AS) algorithms and their respective validation, with an emphasis on providing the user with help in understanding the challenges and pitfalls associated with selecting and implementing a PET-AS algorithm for a particular application. Approach A brief description of the different types of PET-AS algorithms is provided using a classification based on method complexity and type. The advantages and the limitations of the current PET-AS algorithms are highlighted based on current publications and existing comparison studies. A review of the available image datasets and contour evaluation metrics in terms of their applicability for establishing a standardized evaluation of PET-AS algorithms is provided. The performance requirements for the algorithms and their dependence on the application, the radiotracer used and the evaluation criteria are described and discussed. Finally, a procedure for algorithm acceptance and implementation, as well as the complementary role of manual and auto-segmentation are addressed. Findings A large number of PET-AS algorithms have been developed within the last 20 years. Many of the proposed algorithms are based on either fixed or adaptively selected thresholds. More recently, numerous papers have proposed the use of more advanced image analysis paradigms to perform semi-automated delineation of the PET images. However, the level of algorithm validation is variable and for most published algorithms is either insufficient or inconsistent which prevents recommending a single algorithm. This is compounded by the fact that realistic image configurations with low signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) and heterogeneous tracer distributions have rarely been used. Large variations in the evaluation methods used in the literature point to the need for a standardized evaluation protocol. Conclusions Available comparison studies suggest that PET-AS algorithms relying on advanced image analysis paradigms provide generally more accurate segmentation than approaches based on PET activity thresholds, particularly for realistic configurations. However, this may not be the case for simple shape lesions in situations with a narrower range of parameters, where simpler methods may also perform well. Recent algorithms which employ some type of consensus or automatic selection between several PET-AS methods have potential to overcome the limitations of the individual methods when appropriately trained. In either case, accuracy evaluation is required for each different PET scanner and scanning and image reconstruction protocol. For the simpler, less robust approaches, adaptation to scanning conditions, tumor type, and tumor location by optimization of parameters is necessary. The results from the method evaluation stage can be used to estimate the contouring uncertainty. All PET-AS contours should be critically verified by a physician. A standard test, i.e., a benchmark dedicated to ...

Despite the continuous evolution of positron emission tomography (PET) technology, the spatial resolution (SR) of PET images remains poor (4-6 mm) compared with that of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (\1 mm). The reasons for this lie intrinsically in the physics behind PET and in the scanner design. This poor SR and the consequent partial volume effect (PVE), affecting image quality and the estimation of radioactivity concentration in small structures, complicate the anatomical localisation of focal radiotracer uptake signals and the application of a quantitative approach in the evaluation of PET studies. Methods for PVE compensation are therefore needed to improve the quality and quantitative accuracy of PET images. The simplest of the PVE compensation methods is the one based on recovery coefficients. Other techniques exploit high-resolution structural information extracted from co-registered CT or MR images to correct for the PVE. Others still are aimed instead at recovering the degradation effect by exploiting the point spread function of the PET system within the reconstruction process or using post-processing deconvolution algorithms. Regardless of the method employed, PVE compensation techniques generally assume motion-free PET data. In neurological studies, this assumption may be verified; in cardiological and oncological applications, on the other hand, organ/lesion motion and the PVE should necessarily be taken into account and corrected for sequentially or simultaneously. This paper deals with the PVE, its impact on qualitative and quantitative PET imaging, and possible approaches for PVE compensation.

No abstract

PurposeThe aim of this paper is to define the requirements and describe the design and implementation of a standard benchmark tool for evaluation and validation of PET‐auto‐segmentation (PET‐AS) algorithms. This work follows the recommendations of Task Group 211 (TG211) appointed by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM).MethodsThe recommendations published in the AAPM TG211 report were used to derive a set of required features and to guide the design and structure of a benchmarking software tool. These items included the selection of appropriate representative data and reference contours obtained from established approaches and the description of available metrics. The benchmark was designed in a way that it could be extendable by inclusion of bespoke segmentation methods, while maintaining its main purpose of being a standard testing platform for newly developed PET‐AS methods. An example of implementation of the proposed framework, named PETASset, was built. In this work, a selection of PET‐AS methods representing common approaches to PET image segmentation was evaluated within PETASset for the purpose of testing and demonstrating the capabilities of the software as a benchmark platform.ResultsA selection of clinical, physical, and simulated phantom data, including “best estimates” reference contours from macroscopic specimens, simulation template, and CT scans was built into the PETASset application database. Specific metrics such as Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), Positive Predictive Value (PPV), and Sensitivity (S), were included to allow the user to compare the results of any given PET‐AS algorithm to the reference contours. In addition, a tool to generate structured reports on the evaluation of the performance of PET‐AS algorithms against the reference contours was built. The variation of the metric agreement values with the reference contours across the PET‐AS methods evaluated for demonstration were between 0.51 and 0.83, 0.44 and 0.86, and 0.61 and 1.00 for DSC, PPV, and the S metric, respectively. Examples of agreement limits were provided to show how the software could be used to evaluate a new algorithm against the existing state‐of‐the art.Conclusions PETASset provides a platform that allows standardizing the evaluation and comparison of different PET‐AS methods on a wide range of PET datasets. The developed platform will be available to users willing to evaluate their PET‐AS methods and contribute with more evaluation datasets.

No abstract