PURPOSE: To determine whether a non-rigid registration (NRR) technique was more accurate than a rigid registration (RR) technique when fusing pre-procedural contrast-enhanced MR images to unenhanced CT images during CT-guided percutaneous cryoablation of renal tumors. METHODS: Both RR and NRR were applied retrospectively to 11 CT-guided percutaneous cryoablation procedures performed to treat renal tumors (mean diameter; 23 mm). Pre-procedural contrast-enhanced MR images of the upper abdomen were registered to unenhanced intra-procedural CT images obtained just prior to the ablation. RRs were performed manually, and NRRs were performed using an intensity-based approach with affine and Basis-Spline techniques used for modeling displacement. Registration accuracy for each technique was assessed using the 95% Hausdorff distance (HD), Fiducial Registration Error (FRE) and the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC). Statistical differences were analyzed using a two-sided Student's t-test. Time for each registration technique was recorded. RESULTS: Mean 95% HD (1.7 mm), FRE (1.7 mm) and DSC (0.96) using the NRR technique were significantly better than mean 95% HD (6.4 mm), FRE (5.0 mm) and DSC (0.88) using the RR technique (P < 0.05 for each analysis). Mean registration times of NRR and RR techniques were 15.2 and 5.7 min, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The non-rigid registration technique was more accurate than the rigid registration technique when fusing pre-procedural MR images to intra-procedural unenhanced CT images. The non-rigid registration technique can be used to improve visualization of renal tumors during CT-guided cryoablation procedures.
PURPOSE: To determine whether a non-rigid registration (NRR) technique was more accurate than a rigid registration (RR) technique when fusing pre-procedural contrast-enhanced MR images to unenhanced CT images during CT-guided percutaneous cryoablation of renal tumors. METHODS: Both RR and NRR were applied retrospectively to 11 CT-guided percutaneous cryoablation procedures performed to treat renal tumors (mean diameter; 23 mm). Pre-procedural contrast-enhanced MR images of the upper abdomen were registered to unenhanced intra-procedural CT images obtained just prior to the ablation. RRs were performed manually, and NRRs were performed using an intensity-based approach with affine and Basis-Spline techniques used for modeling displacement. Registration accuracy for each technique was assessed using the 95% Hausdorff distance (HD), Fiducial Registration Error (FRE) and the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC). Statistical differences were analyzed using a two-sided Student's t-test. Time for each registration technique was recorded. RESULTS: Mean 95% HD (1.7 mm), FRE (1.7 mm) and DSC (0.96) using the NRR technique were significantly better than mean 95% HD (6.4 mm), FRE (5.0 mm) and DSC (0.88) using the RR technique (P < 0.05 for each analysis). Mean registration times of NRR and RR techniques were 15.2 and 5.7 min, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The non-rigid registration technique was more accurate than the rigid registration technique when fusing pre-procedural MR images to intra-procedural unenhanced CT images. The non-rigid registration technique can be used to improve visualization of renal tumors during CT-guided cryoablation procedures.
Authors: E L Giele; J A de Priester; J A Blom; J A den Boer; J M van Engelshoven; A Hasman; M Geerlings Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: D T Gering; A Nabavi; R Kikinis; N Hata; L J O'Donnell; W E Grimson; F A Jolesz; P M Black; W M Wells Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Haytham Elhawary; Sota Oguro; Kemal Tuncali; Paul R Morrison; Paul B Shyn; Servet Tatli; Stuart G Silverman; Nobuhiko Hat Journal: Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv Date: 2009
Authors: A Bharatha; M Hirose; N Hata; S K Warfield; M Ferrant; K H Zou; E Suarez-Santana; J Ruiz-Alzola; A D'Amico; R A Cormack; R Kikinis; F A Jolesz; C M Tempany Journal: Med Phys Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Debra A Gervais; Francis J McGovern; Ronald S Arellano; W Scott McDougal; Peter R Mueller Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Adam Wittek; Grand Joldes; Mathieu Couton; Simon K Warfield; Karol Miller Journal: Prog Biophys Mol Biol Date: 2010-09-22 Impact factor: 3.667
Authors: Mao Li; Karol Miller; Grand Roman Joldes; Barry Doyle; Revanth Reddy Garlapati; Ron Kikinis; Adam Wittek Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2015-01-30 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Musaddiq Awan; Steven Bedrick; Coen R N Rasch; David I Rosenthal; Clifton D Fuller Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Yue Yu; George Bourantas; Benjamin Zwick; Grand Joldes; Tina Kapur; Sarah Frisken; Ron Kikinis; Arya Nabavi; Alexandra Golby; Adam Wittek; Karol Miller Journal: Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng Date: 2021-10-24 Impact factor: 2.747