Literature DB >> 25489840

Effect of material property heterogeneity on biomechanical modeling of prostate under deformation.

Navid Samavati1, Deirdre M McGrath, Michael A S Jewett, Theo van der Kwast, Cynthia Ménard, Kristy K Brock.   

Abstract

Biomechanical model based deformable image registration has been widely used to account for prostate deformation in various medical imaging procedures. Biomechanical material properties are important components of a biomechanical model. In this study, the effect of incorporating tumor-specific material properties in the prostate biomechanical model was investigated to provide insight into the potential impact of material heterogeneity on the prostate deformation calculations. First, a simple spherical prostate and tumor model was used to analytically describe the deformations and demonstrate the fundamental effect of changes in the tumor volume and stiffness in the modeled deformation. Next, using a clinical prostate model, a parametric approach was used to describe the variations in the heterogeneous prostate model by changing tumor volume, stiffness, and location, to show the differences in the modeled deformation between heterogeneous and homogeneous prostate models. Finally, five clinical prostatectomy examples were used in separately performed homogeneous and heterogeneous biomechanical model based registrations to describe the deformations between 3D reconstructed histopathology images and ex vivo magnetic resonance imaging, and examine the potential clinical impact of modeling biomechanical heterogeneity of the prostate. The analytical formulation showed that increasing the tumor volume and stiffness could significantly increase the impact of the heterogeneous prostate model in the calculated displacement differences compared to the homogeneous model. The parametric approach using a single prostate model indicated up to 4.8 mm of displacement difference at the tumor boundary compared to a homogeneous model. Such differences in the deformation of the prostate could be potentially clinically significant given the voxel size of the ex vivo MR images (0.3  ×  0.3  ×  0.3 mm). However, no significant changes in the registration accuracy were observed using heterogeneous models for the limited number of clinical prostatectomy patients modeled and evaluated in this study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25489840      PMCID: PMC4443715          DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/60/1/195

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  26 in total

Review 1.  A survey of medical image registration.

Authors:  J B Maintz; M A Viergever
Journal:  Med Image Anal       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 8.545

2.  Registration of 3-D intraoperative MR images of the brain using a finite-element biomechanical model.

Authors:  M Ferrant; A Nabavi; B Macq; F A Jolesz; R Kikinis; S K Warfield
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 10.048

3.  MR elastography of the prostate: initial in-vivo application.

Authors:  J Kemper; R Sinkus; J Lorenzen; C Nolte-Ernsting; A Stork; G Adam
Journal:  Rofo       Date:  2004-08

4.  Tissue deformation and shape models in image-guided interventions: a discussion paper.

Authors:  D J Hawkes; D Barratt; J M Blackall; C Chan; P J Edwards; K Rhode; G P Penney; J McClelland; D L G Hill
Journal:  Med Image Anal       Date:  2004-12-28       Impact factor: 8.545

5.  Automated finite-element analysis for deformable registration of prostate images.

Authors:  Jessica R Crouch; Stephen M Pizer; Edward L Chaney; Yu-Chi Hu; Gig S Mageras; Marco Zaider
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 10.048

6.  Registration of MR prostate images with biomechanical modeling and nonlinear parameter estimation.

Authors:  Ron Alterovitz; Ken Goldberg; Jean Pouliot; I-Chow Joe Hsu; Yongbok Kim; Susan Moyher Noworolski; John Kurhanewicz
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Percent tumor volume predicts biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: multi-institutional data analysis.

Authors:  Cheryn Song; Seongil Seo; Hanjong Ahn; Seok-Soo Byun; Jin Seon Cho; Young Deuk Choi; Eunsik Lee; Hyun Moo Lee; Sang Eun Lee; Han Yong Choi
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-08-05       Impact factor: 3.402

8.  Predicting error in rigid-body point-based registration.

Authors:  J M Fitzpatrick; J B West; C R Maurer
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 10.048

9.  Local property characterization of prostate glands using inhomogeneous modeling based on tumor volume and location analysis.

Authors:  Yeongjin Kim; Bummo Ahn; Jae Won Lee; Koon Ho Rha; Jung Kim
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2012-11-11       Impact factor: 2.602

10.  Simulation-based joint estimation of body deformation and elasticity parameters for medical image analysis.

Authors:  Huai-Ping Lee; Mark Foskey; Marc Niethammer; Pavel Krajcevski; Ming Lin
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2012-08-08       Impact factor: 10.048

View more
  4 in total

1.  MR elastography to measure the effects of cancer and pathology fixation on prostate biomechanics, and comparison with T 1, T 2 and ADC.

Authors:  Deirdre M McGrath; Jenny Lee; Warren D Foltz; Navid Samavati; Theo van der Kwast; Michael A S Jewett; Peter Chung; Cynthia Ménard; Kristy K Brock
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2017-02-07       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 2.  Bladder biomechanics and the use of scaffolds for regenerative medicine in the urinary bladder.

Authors:  Fatemeh Ajalloueian; Greg Lemon; Jöns Hilborn; Ioannis S Chronakis; Magdalena Fossum
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2018-02-13       Impact factor: 14.432

3.  Personalized heterogeneous deformable model for fast volumetric registration.

Authors:  Weixin Si; Xiangyun Liao; Qiong Wang; Pheng Ann Heng
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2017-02-20       Impact factor: 2.819

4.  Prostate Cancer Detection with a Tactile Resonance Sensor-Measurement Considerations and Clinical Setup.

Authors:  Anders P Åstrand; Britt M Andersson; Ville Jalkanen; Börje Ljungberg; Anders Bergh; Olof A Lindahl
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2017-10-26       Impact factor: 3.576

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.