RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Registration enables quantitative spatial correlation of features from different imaging modalities. Our objective is to register in vivo imaging with histologic sections of the human prostate so that histologic truth can be correlated with in vivo imaging features. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In vivo imaging of the prostate included T2-weighted anatomic and diffusion weighted 3-T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as well as 11C-choline positron emission tomography (PET). In addition, ex vivo 3-T MRI of the prostate specimen, histology, and associated block face photos of the prostate specimen were obtained. A standard registration method based on mutual information (MI) and thin-plate spline (TPS) was applied. Registration among in vivo imaging modalities is well established; however, accurate registration involving histology is difficult. Our approach breaks up the difficult direct registration of histology and in vivo imaging into achievable subregistration tasks involving intermediate ex vivo modalities like block face photography and specimen MRI. Results of subregistration tasks are combined to compute the intended, final registration between in vivo imaging and histology. RESULTS: The methodology was applied to two patients and found to be clinically feasible. Overall registered anatomic MRI, diffusion MRI, and 11C-choline PET aligned well with histology qualitatively for both patients. There is no ground truth of registration accuracy as the scans are real patient scans. An indirect validation of the registration accuracy has been proposed comparing tumor boundary markings found in diffusion MRI and histologic sections. Registration errors for two patients between diffusion MRI and histology were 3.74 and 2.26 mm. CONCLUSION: This proof of concept paper demonstrates a method based on intrinsic image information content for successfully registering in vivo imaging of the human prostate with its post-resection histology, which does not require the use of extrinsic fiducial markers. The methodology successfully mapped histology onto the in vivo imaging space, allowing the observation of how well different in vivo imaging features correspond to histologic truth. The methodology is therefore the basis for a systematic comparison of in vivo imaging for staging of human prostate cancer.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Registration enables quantitative spatial correlation of features from different imaging modalities. Our objective is to register in vivo imaging with histologic sections of the human prostate so that histologic truth can be correlated with in vivo imaging features. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In vivo imaging of the prostate included T2-weighted anatomic and diffusion weighted 3-T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as well as 11C-choline positron emission tomography (PET). In addition, ex vivo 3-T MRI of the prostate specimen, histology, and associated block face photos of the prostate specimen were obtained. A standard registration method based on mutual information (MI) and thin-plate spline (TPS) was applied. Registration among in vivo imaging modalities is well established; however, accurate registration involving histology is difficult. Our approach breaks up the difficult direct registration of histology and in vivo imaging into achievable subregistration tasks involving intermediate ex vivo modalities like block face photography and specimen MRI. Results of subregistration tasks are combined to compute the intended, final registration between in vivo imaging and histology. RESULTS: The methodology was applied to two patients and found to be clinically feasible. Overall registered anatomic MRI, diffusion MRI, and 11C-choline PET aligned well with histology qualitatively for both patients. There is no ground truth of registration accuracy as the scans are real patient scans. An indirect validation of the registration accuracy has been proposed comparing tumor boundary markings found in diffusion MRI and histologic sections. Registration errors for two patients between diffusion MRI and histology were 3.74 and 2.26 mm. CONCLUSION: This proof of concept paper demonstrates a method based on intrinsic image information content for successfully registering in vivo imaging of the human prostate with its post-resection histology, which does not require the use of extrinsic fiducial markers. The methodology successfully mapped histology onto the in vivo imaging space, allowing the observation of how well different in vivo imaging features correspond to histologic truth. The methodology is therefore the basis for a systematic comparison of in vivo imaging for staging of humanprostate cancer.
Authors: Michael S Breen; Tanya L Lancaster; Roee S Lazebnik; Sherif G Nour; Jonathan S Lewin; David L Wilson Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: M D Rifkin; E A Zerhouni; C A Gatsonis; L E Quint; D M Paushter; J I Epstein; U Hamper; P C Walsh; B J McNeil Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1990-09-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: T L Chenevert; L D Stegman; J M Taylor; P L Robertson; H S Greenberg; A Rehemtulla; B D Ross Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-12-20 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Kelly H Zou; Simon K Warfield; Aditya Bharatha; Clare M C Tempany; Michael R Kaus; Steven J Haker; William M Wells; Ferenc A Jolesz; Ron Kikinis Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Jörg Kotzerke; Björn G Volkmer; Bernd Neumaier; Jürgen E Gschwend; Richard E Hautmann; Sven N Reske Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2002-07-27 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Walid M Abdelmoula; Michael S Regan; Begona G C Lopez; Elizabeth C Randall; Sean Lawler; Ann C Mladek; Michal O Nowicki; Bianca M Marin; Jeffrey N Agar; Kristin R Swanson; Tina Kapur; Jann N Sarkaria; William Wells; Nathalie Y R Agar Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2019-04-22 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: Jonathan Chappelow; B Nicolas Bloch; Neil Rofsky; Elizabeth Genega; Robert Lenkinski; William DeWolf; Anant Madabhushi Journal: Med Phys Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Li Hong Chen; Henry Ho; Richie Lazaro; Choon Hua Thng; John Yuen; Wan Sing Ng; Chris Cheng Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2010-02-24 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Alan Priester; Shyam Natarajan; Jesse D Le; James Garritano; Bryan Radosavcev; Warren Grundfest; Daniel Ja Margolis; Leonard S Marks; Jiaoti Huang Journal: Am J Clin Exp Urol Date: 2014-07-12
Authors: Alan Priester; Shyam Natarajan; Pooria Khoshnoodi; Daniel J Margolis; Steven S Raman; Robert E Reiter; Jiaoti Huang; Warren Grundfest; Leonard S Marks Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-07-30 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Mekhail Anwar; Antonio C Westphalen; Adam J Jung; Susan M Noworolski; Jeffry P Simko; John Kurhanewicz; Mack Roach; Peter R Carroll; Fergus V Coakley Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2014-01-17 Impact factor: 6.280