多模态配准及标准化方法在阿尔茨海默病^(18)F-AV45 PET脑显像中的价值与差异分析  

Analysis of values and differences of multi-modality registration and normalization methods in^(18)F-AV45 PET imaging for Alzheimer′s disease

作　　者：冯洪波[1] 蒋袁芳 解敬慧[1] 杜雪梅[1] Feng Hongbo;Jiang Yuanfang;Xie Jinghui;Du Xuemei(Department of Nuclear Medicine,the First Afiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University,Dalian ll601l,China)

机构地区：[1]大连医科大学附属第一医院核医学科,大连116011

出　　处：《中华核医学与分子影像杂志》2023年第7期385-390,共6页Chinese Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

摘　　要：目的探讨多种模态图像配准及标准化方法在^(18)F-AV45 PET定量分析中的差异及在阿尔茨海默病(AD)辅助诊断中的价值。方法纳入来自美国国立老化研究所的AD神经显像计划(ADNI)公开数据库的20例AD患者[男女各10例,年龄(77.0±5.8)岁]、20名正常对照[NC;男8名、女12名,年龄(75.2±4.8)岁]进行分析。通过视觉分析评定受试者β-淀粉样蛋白(Aβ)沉积是否为阳性。分别采用模板标准化法(方法1)、^(18)F-FDG PET配准后标准化法(方法2)、MRI配准后标准化法(方法3),以小脑为参考区,计算各脑区SUV比值(SUVr)和个体SUVr均值。采用组内相关系数(ICC)分析方法间的一致性分析,采用两独立样本t检验和单因素重复测量方差分析比较不同分组和不同方法间定量指标的差异。通过ROC曲线分析对比3种方法对AD与NC、Aβ沉积阳性与否的诊断效能。结果视觉分析显示,AD组和NC组中分别有15和6例Aβ沉积阳性。方法1~3得到的SUVr具有较好的一致性(ICC=0.82,P<0.001),三者个体SUVr均值分别为1.29±0.17、1.36±0.23和1.45±0.24,差异有统计学意义(F=68.78,P<0.001)。对于个体SUVr均值,AD组(1.39±0.17、1.48±0.24、1.58±0.25)与NC组(1.20±0.10、1.24±0.15、1.33±0.16)间(t值:3.55~4.33,均P<0.05)、Aβ沉积阳性组(1.39±0.16、1.50±0.21、1.59±0.23)与阴性组(1.19±0.11、1.21±0.14、1.31±0.15)间的差异有统计学意义(t值:4.58、5.11、4.41,均P<0.001);方法3对应的个体SUVr均值更高(均P<0.001)。方法1~3区分Aβ沉积阳性与阴性的AUC分别为0.86、0.88和0.84,个体SUVr均值最佳阈值分别为1.29、1.37和1.52。结论3种多模态配准及标准化方法均是^(18)F-AV45 PET显像定量分析的可靠方法,但亦有所差异,在实际应用中需根据情况谨慎选择。Objective To explore values and differences of multi-modality image registration and normalization methods in^(18)F-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^(18)F-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,Aβpositive and negative cases.Results There were 15 and 6 patients with positive Aβdeposition 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),Aβpositive 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(bothP<0.001).The AUCs of distinguishing Aβpositive 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

关 键 词：阿尔茨海默病 淀粉样蛋白 图像处理 计算机辅助 正电子发射断层显像术 

分 类 号：R749.16[医药卫生—神经病学与精神病学] R817.4[医药卫生—临床医学]