Accurate, robust and reproducible delineation of tumour in Positron Emission Tomography (PET) is essential for diagnosis, treatment planning and response assessment. Since standardized uptake value (SUV) - a normalized semiquantitative parameter used in PET is represented by the intensity of the PET images and related to the radiotracer uptake, a SUV based threshold method is a natural choice to delineate the tumour. However, determination of an optimum threshold value is a challenging task due to low spatial resolution, and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) along with finite image sampling constraint. The aim of the review is to summarize different fixed and adaptive threshold-based PET image segmentation approaches under a common mathematical framework Advantages and disadvantages of different threshold based methods are also highlighted from the perspectives of diagnosis, treatment planning and response assessment. Several fixed threshold values (30%-70% of the maximum SUV of the tumour (SUVmaxT)) have been investigated. It has been reported that the fixed threshold-based method is very much dependent on the SNR, tumour to background ratio (TBR) and the size of the tumour. Adaptive threshold-based method, an alternative to fixed threshold, can minimize these dependencies by accounting for tumour to background ratio (TBR) and tumour size. However, the parameters for the adaptive methods need to be calibrated for each PET camera system (e.g., scanner geometry, image acquisition protocol, reconstruction algorithm etc.) and it is not straight forward to implement the same procedure to other PET systems to obtain similar results. It has been reported that the performance of the adaptive methods is also not optimum for smaller volumes with lower TBR and SNR. Statistical analysis carried out on the NEMA thorax phantom images also indicates that regions segmented by the fixed threshold method are significantly different for all cases. On the other hand, the adaptive method provides significantly different segmented regions only for low TBR with different SNR. From this viewpoint, a robust threshold based segmentation method that will be less sensitive to , SNR, TBR and volume needs to be developed. It was really challenging to compare the performance of different threshold-based methods because the performance of each method was tested on dissimilar data set with different data acquisition and reconstruction protocols along with different TBR, SNR and volumes. To avoid such difficulties, it will be desirable to have a common database of clinical PET images acquired with different image acquisition protocols and different PET cameras to compare the performance of automatic segmentation methods. It is also suggested to report the changes in SNR and TBR while reporting the response using threshold based methods.
Keywords: Biomedical engineering; Computer-aided engineering; Image processing; Intensity threshold; Medical imaging; Oncology; PET; Segmentation; Standardized uptake value (SUV).
© 2020 The Author.