Abstract
Since the discovery of X-rays, imaging has been a vital component of clinical medicine. Increasingly, in vivo imaging of small laboratory animals, i.e. mice and rats, has emerged as an important component of basic biomedical research as well. Historically, clinical and laboratory imaging modalities have often been divided into two general categories, structural (or anatomical) and functional (or physiological). Anatomical modalities, i.e. depicting primarily morphology, include X-rays (plain radiography), CT (computed tomography), MRI (magnetic resonance imaging), and US (ultrasound). Functional modalities, i.e. depicting primarily information related to underlying genetics and metabolism, include (planar) scintigraphy, SPECT (single-photon emission computed tomography), PET (positron emission tomography), MRS/MRSI (magnetic resonance spectroscopy and spectroscopic imaging), fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging), and, in small animals, optical (i.e. bioluminescence and fluorescence) imaging modalities. The functional modalities form the basis of the rapidly advancing field of “molecular imaging,” defined as the direct or indirect non-invasive monitoring and recording of the spatial and temporal distribution of in vivo molecular, genetic, and/or cellular processes for biochemical, biological, diagnostic, or therapeutic applications [1].
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The analogy between signal entropy, used in the context of mutual information, and thermodynamic entropy thus becomes clear.
- 2.
In information theory, there are actually a number of different definitions of mutual information.
References
RSNA News, RSNA, SNM urge interdisciplinary cooperation to advance molecular imaging, 2005.
Zanzonico P. and Heller H. Developments in instrumentation. Seminars Nucl Med, vol. 38, pp. 149–222, 2008.
P. Zanzonico. Multimodality image registration and fusion. In Dhawan AP, Huang HK, and Kim DS (Eds), Principles and Advanced Methods in Medical Imaging and Image Analysis, World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, pp. 413–435, 2008.
B.F. Hutton, M. Braun, L. Thurfjell, et al. Image registration: An essential tool for nuclear medicine. Eur J Nucl Med, vol. 29, pp. 559–577, 2002.
J.B.A. Maintz and M.A. Viergever, “A survey of medical image registration,” Med Image Anal, vol. 2, pp. 1–36, 1998.
J.V. Hajnal, D.L.G. Hill DLG, and D.J. Hawkes DJ (Eds.). Medical image registration, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2001.
D.L.G. Hill, P.G. Batchelor, M. Holden, et al. Medical image registration. Phys Med Biol, vol. 46, pp. R1–R45, 2001.
American College of Radiology, National Electrical Manufacturers Association. ACR-NEMA Digital Imaging and Communications Standard. NEMA Standards Publication No. 300-1985, Washington, DC, 1985.
American College of Radiology, National Electrical Manufacturers Association. ACR-NEMA Digital Imaging and Communications Standard: Version 2.0. NEMA Standards Publication No. 300-1988, Washington, DC, 1988.
American College of Radiology, National Electrical Manufacturers Association. Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM): Version 3.0. Draft Standard, ACR-NEMA Committee, Working Group VI, Washington, DC, 1993.
P. Mildenberger, M. Eichelberg, and E. Martin. Introduction to the DICOM standard. Eur Radiol, vol. 12, pp. 920–927, 2002.
P. Viola and W.M. Wells III. Alignment by maximization of mutual information. Inter J Computer Vision, vol. 22, pp. 137–154, 1997.
P. Zanzonico and S.A. Nehmeh. Introduction to clinical and laboratory (small-animal) image registration and fusion. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Bio Soc, vol. 1, pp. 1580–1583, 2006.
B.J. Pichler, H.F. Wehrl, A. Kolb, et al. Positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging: the next generation of multimodality imaging? Seminars Nucl Med, vol. 38, pp. 199–208, 2008.
Zanzonico P, Campa J, Polycarpe-Holman D ,et al, Animal-specific positioning molds for registration of repeat imaging studies: Comparative microPET™ imaging of F18-labeled fluoro-deoxyglucose and fluoro-misonidazole in rodent tumors. Nucl Med Biol, vol. 33, pp. 65–70, 2006.
J.L. Humm, D. Ballon, J. Hu, et al. A stereotactic method for the three-dimensional registration of multi-modality biologic images in animals: NMR, PET, histology, and autoradiograph. Med Physics, vol. 30, pp. 2303–2314, 2003.
H. Cho, E. Ackerstaff E, S. Carlin S, et al. Noninvasive multimodality imaging of the tumor microenvironment: registered dynamic magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography studies of a preclinical tumor model of tumor hypoxia. Neoplasia, vol. 11, pp. 247–259. 2009.
U.Hoffmann, G.Brix, M.V.Knopp, et al. Pharmokinetic mapping of the breast: a new method for dynamic MR mammography. Magnet Resonance Med, vol. 33, pp. 506–514, 1995.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zanzonico, P. (2014). Image Registration for Multimodality Small-Animal Imaging. In: Zaidi, H. (eds) Molecular Imaging of Small Animals. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0894-3_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0894-3_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-0893-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-0894-3
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)