Combined PET-MR Brain Registration to Discriminate between Alzheimer’s Disease and Healthy Controls

  • Liam Cattell
  • Julia A. Schnabel
  • Jerome Declerck
  • Chloe Hutton
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8545)


Previous amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) imaging studies have shown that Alzheimer’s disease (AD) patients exhibit higher standardised uptake value ratios (SUVRs) than healthy controls. Automatic methods for SUVR calculation in brain images are typically based on registration of PET brain data to a template, followed by computation of the mean uptake ratio in a set of regions in the template space. Resulting SUVRs will therefore have some dependence on the registration method. It is widely accepted that registration based on anatomical information provides optimal results. However, in clinical practice, good quality anatomical data may not be available and registration is often based on PET data alone. We investigate the effect of using functional and structural image information during the registration of PET volumes to a template, by comparing six registration methods: affine registration, non-linear registration using PET-driven demons, non-linear registration using magnetic resonance (MR) driven demons, and our novel joint PET-MR registration technique with three different combination weightings. Our registration method jointly registers PET-MR brain volume pairs, by combining the incremental updates computed in single-modality local correlation coefficient demons registrations. All six registration methods resulted in significantly higher mean SUVRs for diseased subjects compared to healthy subjects. Furthermore, the combined PET-MR registration method resulted in a small, but significant, increase in the mean Dice overlaps between cortical regions in the MR brain volumes and the MR template, compared with the single-modality registration methods. These results suggest that a non-linear, combined PET-MR registration method can perform at least as well as the single-modality registration methods in terms of the separation between SUVRs and Dice overlaps, and may be well suited to discriminate between populations of AD patients and healthy controls.


Positron Emission Tomography Image Registration Method Positron Emission Tomography Brain Amyloid Positron Emission Tomography Image Positron Emission Tomography Volume 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Wimo, A., Winblad, B., Aguero-Torres, H., Von Strauss, E.: The magnitude of dementia occurrence in the world. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders 17(2), 63–67 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Raniga, P., Bourgeat, P., Fripp, J., Acosta, A., Villemagne, V., Rowe, C., Masters, C., Jones, G., O’Keefe, G., Salvado, O., Ourselin, S.: Automated 11C-PiB standardised uptake value ratio. Academic Radiology 15(11), 1376–1389 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fleisher, A., Chen, K., Liu, X., Roontiva, A., Thiyyagura, P., Ayutyanont, N., Joshi, A., Clark, C., Mintun, M., Pontecorvo, M., Doraiswamy, P., Johnson, K., Skovronsky, D., Reiman, E.: Using positron emission tomography and florbetapir f 18 to image cortical amyloid in patients with mild cognitive impairment or dementia due to Alzheimer disease. Archives of Neurology 68(11), 1404–1411 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hutton, C., Declerck, J., Mintun, M., Pontecorvo, M., Joshi, A.: Quantification of florbetapir f18 pet: Comparison of two methods. In: Annual Congress of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vercauteren, T., Pennec, X., Perchant, A., Ayache, N.: Diffeomorphic demons: Efficient non-parametric image registration. NeuroImage 45(1), S61–S72 (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Peyrat, J., Delingette, H., Sermesant, M., Xu, C., Ayache, N.: Registration of 4D cardiac CT sequences under trajectory constraints with multichannel diffeomorphic demons. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 29(7), 1351–1368 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Forsberg, D., Rathi, Y., Bouix, S., Wassermann, D., Knutsson, H., Westin, C.-F.: Improving registration using multi-channel diffeomorphic demons combined with certainty maps. In: Liu, T., Shen, D., Ibanez, L., Tao, X. (eds.) MBIA 2011. LNCS, vol. 7012, pp. 19–26. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cachier, P., Bardinet, E., Dormont, D., Pennec, X., Ayache, N.: Iconic feature based nonrigid registration: the PASHA algorithm. Computer Vision and Image Understanding 89, 272–298 (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lorenzi, M., Ayache, N., Frisoni, G., Pennec, X.: LCC-Demons: A robust and accurate symmetric diffeomorphic registration algorithm. NeuroImage 81, 470–483 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Studholme, C., Hill, D., Hawkes, D.: Automated 3-d registration of MR and CT images of the head. Medical Image Analyis 1, 163–175 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jenkinson, M., Smith, S.: A global optimisation method for robust affine registration of brain images. Medical Image Analysis 5(2), 143–156 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jenkinson, M., Bannister, P., Brady, J., Smith, S.: Improved optimisation for the robust an accurate linear registration an motion correction of brain images. NeuroImage 17(2), 825–841 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ashburner, J., Friston, K.: Unified segmentation. NeuroImage 26, 839–851 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guimond, A., Meunier, J., Thirion, J.P.: Average brain models: A convergence study. Computer Vision and Image Understanding 77(2), 192–210 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zijdenbos, A., Dawant, B., Margolin, R., Palmer, A.: Morphometric analysis of white matter lesions in mr images: method and validation. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 13(4), 716–724 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tzourio-Mazoyer, N., Landeau, B., Papathanassiou, D., Crivello, F., Etard, O., Delcroix, N., Mazoyer, B., Joliot, M.: Automated anatomical labelling of activations in SPM using a macroscopic anatomical parcellation of the MNI MRI single subject brain. NeuroImage 15(1), 273–289 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heckemann, R., Hajnal, J., Aljabar, P., Rueckert, D., Hammers, A.: Automatic anatomical brain MRI segmentation combining label propagation and decision fusion. NeuroImage 33, 115–126 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Liam Cattell
    • 1
  • Julia A. Schnabel
    • 1
  • Jerome Declerck
    • 2
  • Chloe Hutton
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Engineering ScienceUniversity of OxfordUK
  2. 2.Siemens Molecular ImagingOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations