Literature DB >> 25624044

Elastic registration of prostate MR images based on estimation of deformation states.

Bahram Marami1, Shahin Sirouspour2, Suha Ghoul3, Jeremy Cepek4, Sean R H Davidson5, David W Capson6, John Trachtenberg7, Aaron Fenster8.   

Abstract

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is being used increasingly for image-guided targeted biopsy and focal therapy of prostate cancer. In this paper, a combined rigid and deformable registration technique is proposed to register pre-treatment diagnostic 3T magnetic resonance (MR) images of the prostate, with the identified target tumor(s), to intra-treatment 1.5T MR images. The pre-treatment T2-weighted MR images were acquired with patients in a supine position using an endorectal coil in a 3T scanner, while the intra-treatment T2-weighted MR images were acquired in a 1.5T scanner before insertion of the needle with patients in the semi-lithotomy position. Both the rigid and deformable registration algorithms employ an intensity-based distance metric defined based on the modality independent neighborhood descriptors (MIND) between images. The optimization routine for estimating the rigid transformation parameters is initialized using four pairs of manually selected approximate corresponding points on the boundaries of the prostate. In this paper, the problem of deformable image registration is approached from the perspective of state estimation for dynamical systems. The registration algorithm employs a rather generic dynamic linear elastic model of the tissue deformation discretized by the finite element method (FEM). We use the model in a classical state estimation framework to estimate the deformation of the prostate based on the distance metric between pre- and intra-treatment images. Our deformable registration results using 17 sets of prostate MR images showed that the proposed method yielded a target registration error (TRE) of 1.87 ± 0.94 mm,2.03 ± 0.94 mm, and 1.70 ± 0.93 mm for the whole gland (WG), central gland (CG), and peripheral zone (PZ), respectively, using 76 manually-identified fiducial points. This was an improvement over the 2.67 ± 1.31 mm, 2.95 ± 1.43 mm, and 2.34 ± 1.11 mm, respectively for the WG, CG, and PZ after rigid registration alone. Dice similarity coefficients (DSC) in the WG, CG and PZ were 88.2 ± 5.3, 85.6 ± 7.6 and 68.7 ± 6.9 percent, respectively. Furthermore, the mean absolute distances (MAD) between surfaces was 1.26 ± 0.56 mm and 1.27 ± 0.55 mm in the WG and CG, after deformable registration. These results indicate that the proposed registration technique has sufficient accuracy for localizing prostate tumors in MRI-guided targeted biopsy or focal therapy of clinically localized prostate cancer.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Elastic model-based registration; Finite element method; Focal ablation therapy; Prostate MR image registration; State estimation

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25624044     DOI: 10.1016/j.media.2014.12.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Image Anal        ISSN: 1361-8415            Impact factor:   8.545


  4 in total

1.  Comparison of Elastic and Rigid Registration during Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion-Guided Prostate Biopsy: A Multi-Operator Phantom Study.

Authors:  Graham R Hale; Marcin Czarniecki; Alexis Cheng; Jonathan B Bloom; Reza Seifabadi; Samuel A Gold; Kareem N Rayn; Vikram K Sabarwal; Sherif Mehralivand; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey; Brad Wood; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2018-06-22       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  3D Registration of mpMRI for Assessment of Prostate Cancer Focal Therapy.

Authors:  Clément Orczyk; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Artem Mikheev; Arnauld Villers; Myriam Bernaudin; Samir S Taneja; Samuel Valable; Henry Rusinek
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2017-11-06       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  Accuracy of Elastic Fusion of Prostate Magnetic Resonance and Transrectal Ultrasound Images under Routine Conditions: A Prospective Multi-Operator Study.

Authors:  Paul Moldovan; Corina Udrescu; Emmanuel Ravier; Rémi Souchon; Muriel Rabilloud; Flavie Bratan; Thomas Sanzalone; Fanny Cros; Sébastien Crouzet; Albert Gelet; Olivier Chapet; Olivier Rouvière
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-12-29       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 4.  Accurate validation of ultrasound imaging of prostate cancer: a review of challenges in registration of imaging and histopathology.

Authors:  Rogier R Wildeboer; Ruud J G van Sloun; Arnoud W Postema; Christophe K Mannaerts; Maudy Gayet; Harrie P Beerlage; Hessel Wijkstra; Massimo Mischi
Journal:  J Ultrasound       Date:  2018-07-30
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.