OBJECTIVES: Motion in images potentially compromises the evaluation of temporally acquired CT perfusion (CTp) data; image registration should mitigate this, but first requires validation. Our objective was to compare the relative performance of manual, rigid and non-rigid registration techniques to correct anatomical misalignment in acquired liver CTp data sets. METHODS: 17 data sets in patients with liver tumours who had undergone a CTp protocol were evaluated. Each data set consisted of a cine acquisition during a breath-hold (Phase 1), followed by six further sets of cine scans (each containing 11 images) acquired during free breathing (Phase 2). Phase 2 images were registered to a reference image from Phase 1 cine using two semi-automated intensity-based registration techniques (rigid and non-rigid) and a manual technique (the only option available in the relevant vendor CTp software). The performance of each technique to align liver anatomy was assessed by four observers, independently and blindly, on two separate occasions, using a semi-quantitative visual validation study (employing a six-point score). The registration techniques were statistically compared using an ordinal probit regression model. RESULTS: 306 registrations (2448 observer scores) were evaluated. The three registration techniques were significantly different from each other (p=0.03). On pairwise comparison, the semi-automated techniques were significantly superior to the manual technique, with non-rigid significantly superior to rigid (p<0.0001), which in turn was significantly superior to manual registration (p=0.04). CONCLUSION: Semi-automated registration techniques achieved superior alignment of liver anatomy compared with the manual technique. We hope this will translate into more reliable CTp analyses.
OBJECTIVES: Motion in images potentially compromises the evaluation of temporally acquired CT perfusion (CTp) data; image registration should mitigate this, but first requires validation. Our objective was to compare the relative performance of manual, rigid and non-rigid registration techniques to correct anatomical misalignment in acquired liver CTp data sets. METHODS: 17 data sets in patients with liver tumours who had undergone a CTp protocol were evaluated. Each data set consisted of a cine acquisition during a breath-hold (Phase 1), followed by six further sets of cine scans (each containing 11 images) acquired during free breathing (Phase 2). Phase 2 images were registered to a reference image from Phase 1 cine using two semi-automated intensity-based registration techniques (rigid and non-rigid) and a manual technique (the only option available in the relevant vendor CTp software). The performance of each technique to align liver anatomy was assessed by four observers, independently and blindly, on two separate occasions, using a semi-quantitative visual validation study (employing a six-point score). The registration techniques were statistically compared using an ordinal probit regression model. RESULTS: 306 registrations (2448 observer scores) were evaluated. The three registration techniques were significantly different from each other (p=0.03). On pairwise comparison, the semi-automated techniques were significantly superior to the manual technique, with non-rigid significantly superior to rigid (p<0.0001), which in turn was significantly superior to manual registration (p=0.04). CONCLUSION: Semi-automated registration techniques achieved superior alignment of liver anatomy compared with the manual technique. We hope this will translate into more reliable CTp analyses.
Authors: Yue Cao; Joel F Platt; Isaac R Francis; James M Balter; Charlie Pan; Daniel Normolle; Edgar Ben-Josef; Randall K Ten Haken; Theodore S Lawrence Journal: Med Phys Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Tobias Heimann; Bram van Ginneken; Martin A Styner; Yulia Arzhaeva; Volker Aurich; Christian Bauer; Andreas Beck; Christoph Becker; Reinhard Beichel; György Bekes; Fernando Bello; Gerd Binnig; Horst Bischof; Alexander Bornik; Peter M M Cashman; Ying Chi; Andrés Cordova; Benoit M Dawant; Márta Fidrich; Jacob D Furst; Daisuke Furukawa; Lars Grenacher; Joachim Hornegger; Dagmar Kainmüller; Richard I Kitney; Hidefumi Kobatake; Hans Lamecker; Thomas Lange; Jeongjin Lee; Brian Lennon; Rui Li; Senhu Li; Hans-Peter Meinzer; Gábor Nemeth; Daniela S Raicu; Anne-Mareike Rau; Eva M van Rikxoort; Mikaël Rousson; László Rusko; Kinda A Saddi; Günter Schmidt; Dieter Seghers; Akinobu Shimizu; Pieter Slagmolen; Erich Sorantin; Grzegorz Soza; Ruchaneewan Susomboon; Jonathan M Waite; Andreas Wimmer; Ivo Wolf Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2009-02-10 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Chaan S Ng; Adam G Chandler; James C Yao; Delise H Herron; Ella F Anderson; Chusilp Charnsangavej; Brian P Hobbs Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2014 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: S Skornitzke; F Fritz; M Klauss; G Pahn; J Hansen; J Hirsch; L Grenacher; H-U Kauczor; W Stiller Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2014-12-03 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Andrew B Gill; Nicholas J Hilliard; Simon T Hilliard; Martin J Graves; David J Lomas; Ashley Shaw Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-06-20 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Chaan S Ng; Brian P Hobbs; Wei Wei; Ella F Anderson; Delise H Herron; James C Yao; Adam G Chandler Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2015 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Wolfgang M Thaiss; Ulrike Haberland; Sascha Kaufmann; Daniel Spira; Christoph Thomas; Konstantin Nikolaou; Marius Horger; Alexander W Sauter Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-12-17 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Daniela Muenzel; Heiner Daerr; Roland Proksa; Alexander A Fingerle; Felix K Kopp; Philippe Douek; Julia Herzen; Franz Pfeiffer; Ernst J Rummeny; Peter B Noël Journal: Eur Radiol Exp Date: 2017-12-22
Authors: Daniel Spira; Matthias Wecker; Sven Michael Spira; Jürgen Hetzel; Werner Spengler; Alexander Sauter; Marius Horger Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2013-07-22 Impact factor: 3.909