Literature DB >> 26108293

Robot guidance of an ultrasound probe toward a 3D region of interest detected through X-ray mammography.

Marie-Aude Vitrani1,2,3, Anja Marx4,5,6,7, R Zvan Iordache8, Serge Muller8, Guillaume Morel9,10,11.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This research is situated in the context of breast cancer detection where the standard procedure is the succession of an initial mammography (MX) examination and a supplementary ultrasound (US) scan. One major difficulty of this procedure results from the fact that breast geometry changes between both examinations due to different patient's positions. The proposed system facilitates this combined examination by keeping the breast geometry and by adding a US probe guidance robot to the mammography system.
METHODS: A comanipulation system is set up where the robot and user simultaneously manipulate the probe toward the target previously localized in MX images. Calibration procedures and robot control are detailed.
RESULTS: A test protocol was presented to conduct two tests that are both related to the medical application. The first tests aim at evaluating robot guidance for localizing a lesion which was previously defined in the X-ray images. The second tests aim at quantifying robot influence when scanning a target lesion. The studied task consists of a pointing/scanning exercise, where the US beam intersects a breast lesion.
CONCLUSIONS: The experiments show a significant increase in examination quality when using robot guidance as compared to the nonassisted examination.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Assisted gesture; Breast cancer detection; Comanipulation; Human–robot collaboration

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26108293     DOI: 10.1007/s11548-015-1244-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg        ISSN: 1861-6410            Impact factor:   2.924


  11 in total

1.  A six-degree-of-freedom passive arm with dynamic constraints (PADyC) for cardiac surgery application: preliminary experiments.

Authors:  O Schneider; J Troccaz
Journal:  Comput Aided Surg       Date:  2001

2.  Combination of digital mammography with semi-automated 3D breast ultrasound.

Authors:  Ajay Kapur; Paul L Carson; Jeffrey Eberhard; Mitchell M Goodsitt; Kai Thomenius; Murtuza Lokhandwalla; Donald Buckley; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Mark A Helvie; Rebecca C Booi; Gerald L LeCarpentier; Ramon Q Erkamp; Heang-Ping Chan; J Brian Fowlkes; Jerry A Thomas; Cynthia E Landberg
Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2004-08

3.  Quantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: relationship with breast cancer risk.

Authors:  Jennifer A Harvey; Viktor E Bovbjerg
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-11-14       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Occult breast masses: use of a mammographic localizing grid for US evaluation.

Authors:  W F Conway; C W Hayes; W H Brewer
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1991-10       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Evaluating thin compression paddles for mammographically compatible ultrasound.

Authors:  Rebecca C Booi; Jochen F Krücker; Mitchell M Goodsitt; Matthew O'Donnell; Ajay Kapur; Gerald L LeCarpentier; Marilyn A Roubidoux; J Brian Fowlkes; Paul L Carson
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 2.998

6.  Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue.

Authors:  S S Kaplan
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound. A retrospective review.

Authors:  P B Gordon; S L Goldenberg
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1995-08-15       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg; Jeffrey D Blume; Jean B Cormack; Ellen B Mendelson; Daniel Lehrer; Marcela Böhm-Vélez; Etta D Pisano; Roberta A Jong; W Phil Evans; Marilyn J Morton; Mary C Mahoney; Linda Hovanessian Larsen; Richard G Barr; Dione M Farria; Helga S Marques; Karan Boparai
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2008-05-14       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density.

Authors:  Isabelle Leconte; Chantal Feger; Christine Galant; Martine Berlière; Bruno Vande Berg; William D'Hoore; Baudouin Maldague
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations.

Authors:  Thomas M Kolb; Jacob Lichy; Jeffrey H Newhouse
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 11.105

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.