PURPOSE: To evaluate DRAMMS, an attribute-based deformable registration algorithm, compared to other intensity-based algorithms, for longitudinal breast MRI registration, and to show its applicability in quantifying tumor changes over the course of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: Breast magnetic resonance images from 14 women undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy were analyzed. The accuracy of DRAMMS versus five intensity-based deformable registration methods was evaluated based on 2,380 landmarks independently annotated by two experts, for the entire image volume, different image subregions, and patient subgroups. The registration method with the smallest landmark error was used to quantify tumor changes, by calculating the Jacobian determinant maps of the registration deformation. RESULTS: DRAMMS had the smallest landmark errors (6.05 ± 4.86 mm), followed by the intensity-based methods CC-FFD (8.07 ± 3.86 mm), NMI-FFD (8.21 ± 3.81 mm), SSD-FFD (9.46 ± 4.55 mm), Demons (10.76 ± 6.01 mm), and Diffeomorphic Demons (10.82 ± 6.11 mm). Results show that registration accuracy also depends on tumor versus normal tissue regions and different patient subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The DRAMMS deformable registration method, driven by attribute-matching and mutual-saliency, can register longitudinal breast magnetic resonance images with a higher accuracy than several intensity-matching methods included in this article. As such, it could be valuable for more accurately quantifying heterogeneous tumor changes as a marker of response to treatment.
PURPOSE: To evaluate DRAMMS, an attribute-based deformable registration algorithm, compared to other intensity-based algorithms, for longitudinal breast MRI registration, and to show its applicability in quantifying tumor changes over the course of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: Breast magnetic resonance images from 14 women undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy were analyzed. The accuracy of DRAMMS versus five intensity-based deformable registration methods was evaluated based on 2,380 landmarks independently annotated by two experts, for the entire image volume, different image subregions, and patient subgroups. The registration method with the smallest landmark error was used to quantify tumor changes, by calculating the Jacobian determinant maps of the registration deformation. RESULTS: DRAMMS had the smallest landmark errors (6.05 ± 4.86 mm), followed by the intensity-based methods CC-FFD (8.07 ± 3.86 mm), NMI-FFD (8.21 ± 3.81 mm), SSD-FFD (9.46 ± 4.55 mm), Demons (10.76 ± 6.01 mm), and Diffeomorphic Demons (10.82 ± 6.11 mm). Results show that registration accuracy also depends on tumor versus normal tissue regions and different patient subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The DRAMMS deformable registration method, driven by attribute-matching and mutual-saliency, can register longitudinal breast magnetic resonance images with a higher accuracy than several intensity-matching methods included in this article. As such, it could be valuable for more accurately quantifying heterogeneous tumor changes as a marker of response to treatment.
Authors: E R Denton; L I Sonoda; D Rueckert; S C Rankin; C Hayes; M O Leach; D L Hill; D J Hawkes Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 1999 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Savannah C Partridge; Jessica E Gibbs; Ying Lu; Laura J Esserman; Debasish Tripathy; Dulcy S Wolverton; Hope S Rugo; E Shelley Hwang; Cheryl A Ewing; Nola M Hylton Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: C R Meyer; J L Boes; B Kim; P H Bland; K R Zasadny; P V Kison; K Koral; K A Frey; R L Wahl Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 1997-04 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: Jennifer F De Los Santos; Alan Cantor; Keith D Amos; Andres Forero; Mehra Golshan; Janet K Horton; Clifford A Hudis; Nola M Hylton; Kandace McGuire; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Ingrid M Meszoely; Rita Nanda; E Shelley Hwang Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-02-21 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ahmed B Ashraf; Sara C Gavenonis; Dania Daye; Carolyn Mies; Mark A Rosen; Despina Kontos Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2012-09-19 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Susan Sotardi; Randy L Gollub; Sara V Bates; Rebecca Weiss; Shawn N Murphy; P Ellen Grant; Yangming Ou Journal: Radiology Date: 2020-12-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Blake E Zimmerman; Sara Johnson; Henrik Odeen; Jill Shea; Markus D Foote; Nicole Winkler; Sarang C Joshi; Allison Payne Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2021-04-21 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Yangming Ou; Lilla Zöllei; Kallirroi Retzepi; Victor Castro; Sara V Bates; Steve Pieper; Katherine P Andriole; Shawn N Murphy; Randy L Gollub; Patricia Ellen Grant Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2017-03-31 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Yangming Ou; Randy L Gollub; Kallirroi Retzepi; Nathaniel Reynolds; Rudolph Pienaar; Steve Pieper; Shawn N Murphy; P Ellen Grant; Lilla Zöllei Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2015-08-07 Impact factor: 6.556