Literature DB >> 20869389

A comparison of the accuracy of statistical models of prostate motion trained using data from biomechanical simulations.

Yipeng Hu1, Rieneke van den Boom, Timothy Carter, Zeike Taylor, David Hawkes, Hashim Uddin Ahmed, Mark Emberton, Clare Allen, Dean Barratt.   

Abstract

Statistical shape models (SSM) are widely used in medical image analysis to represent variability in organ shape. However, representing subject-specific soft-tissue motion using this technique is problematic for applications where imaging organ changes in an individual is not possible or impractical. One solution is to synthesise training data by using biomechanical modelling. However, for many clinical applications, generating a biomechanical model of the organ(s) of interest is a non-trivial task that requires a significant amount of user-interaction to segment an image and create a finite element mesh. In this study, we investigate the impact of reducing the effort required to generate SSMs and the accuracy with which such models can predict tissue displacements within the prostate gland due to transrectal ultrasound probe pressure. In this approach, the finite element mesh is based on a simplified geometric representation of the organs. For example, the pelvic bone is represented by planar surfaces, or the number of distinct tissue compartments is reduced. Such representations are much easier to generate from images than a geometrically accurate mesh. The difference in the median root-mean-square displacement error between different SSMs of prostate was <0.2 mm. We conclude that reducing the geometric complexity of the training model in this way made little difference to the absolute accuracy of SSMs to recover tissue displacements. The implication is that SSMs of organ motion based on simulated training data may be generated using simplified geometric representations, which are much more compatible with the time constraints of clinical workflows.
Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20869389     DOI: 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2010.09.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prog Biophys Mol Biol        ISSN: 0079-6107            Impact factor:   3.667


  3 in total

1.  Patient-specific Deformation Modelling via Elastography: Application to Image-guided Prostate Interventions.

Authors:  Yi Wang; Dong Ni; Jing Qin; Ming Xu; Xiaoyan Xie; Pheng-Ann Heng
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-06-07       Impact factor: 4.379

2.  Biomechanical modelling of the pelvic system: improving the accuracy of the location of neoplasms in MRI-TRUS fusion prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Muhammad Qasim; Dolors Puigjaner; Joan Herrero; Josep M López; Carme Olivé; Gerard Fortuny; Josep Garcia-Bennett
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2022-03-28       Impact factor: 4.430

3.  Population-based prediction of subject-specific prostate deformation for MR-to-ultrasound image registration.

Authors:  Yipeng Hu; Eli Gibson; Hashim Uddin Ahmed; Caroline M Moore; Mark Emberton; Dean C Barratt
Journal:  Med Image Anal       Date:  2015-10-31       Impact factor: 8.545

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.