↓ Skip to main content

A method for accurate spatial registration of PET images and histopathology slices

Overview of attention for article published in EJNMMI Research, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A method for accurate spatial registration of PET images and histopathology slices
Published in
EJNMMI Research, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13550-015-0138-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tanuj Puri, Anastasia Chalkidou, Rhonda Henley-Smith, Arunabha Roy, Paul R. Barber, Teresa Guerrero-Urbano, Richard Oakley, Ricard Simo, Jean-Pierre Jeannon, Mark McGurk, Edward W. Odell, Michael J. O’Doherty, Paul K. Marsden

Abstract

Accurate alignment between histopathology slices and positron emission tomography (PET) images is important for radiopharmaceutical validation studies. Limited data is available on the registration accuracy that can be achieved between PET and histopathology slices acquired under routine pathology conditions where slices may be non-parallel, non-contiguously cut and of standard block size. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate a method for aligning PET images and histopathology slices acquired from patients with laryngeal cancer and to assess the registration accuracy obtained under these conditions. Six subjects with laryngeal cancer underwent a (64)Cu-copper-II-diacetyl-bis(N4-methylthiosemicarbazone) ((64)Cu-ATSM) PET computed tomography (CT) scan prior to total laryngectomy. Sea urchin spines were inserted into the pathology specimen to act as fiducial markers. The specimen was fixed in formalin, as per standard histopathology operating procedures, and was then CT scanned and cut into millimetre-thick tissue slices. A subset of the tissue slices that included both tumour and fiducial markers was taken and embedded in paraffin blocks. Subsequently, microtome sectioning and haematoxylin and eosin staining were performed to produce 5-μm-thick tissue sections for microscopic digitisation. A series of rigid registration procedures was performed between the different imaging modalities (PET; in vivo CT-i.e. the CT component of the PET-CT; ex vivo CT; histology slices) with the ex vivo CT serving as the reference image. In vivo and ex vivo CTs were registered using landmark-based registration. Histopathology and ex vivo CT images were aligned using the sea urchin spines with additional anatomical landmarks where available. Registration errors were estimated using a leave-one-out strategy for in vivo to ex vivo CT and were estimated from the RMS landmark accuracy for histopathology to ex vivo CT. The mean ± SD accuracy for registration of the in vivo to ex vivo CT images was 2.66 ± 0.66 mm, and the accuracy for registration of histopathology to ex vivo CT was 0.86 ± 0.41 mm. Estimating the PET to in vivo CT registration accuracy to equal the PET-CT alignment accuracy of 1 mm resulted in an overall average registration error between PET and histopathology slices of 3.0 ± 0.7 mm. We have developed a registration method to align PET images and histopathology slices with an accuracy comparable to the spatial resolution of the PET images.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 28 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 28%
Researcher 5 17%
Student > Master 4 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 5 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 28%
Engineering 4 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Computer Science 2 7%
Physics and Astronomy 2 7%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 5 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 December 2017.
All research outputs
#15,485,255
of 23,011,300 outputs
Outputs from EJNMMI Research
#261
of 564 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,056
of 282,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EJNMMI Research
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,011,300 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 564 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 282,084 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.