Literature DB >> 29654424

Deformable Registration for Longitudinal Breast MRI Screening.

Hatef Mehrabian1, Lara Richmond2, Yingli Lu3, Anne L Martel3,4.   

Abstract

MRI screening of high-risk patients for breast cancer provides very high sensitivity, but with a high recall rate and negative biopsies. Comparing the current exam to prior exams reduces the number of follow-up procedures requested by radiologists. Such comparison, however, can be challenging due to the highly deformable nature of breast tissues. Automated co-registration of multiple scans has the potential to aid diagnosis by providing 3D images for side-by-side comparison and also for use in CAD systems. Although many deformable registration techniques exist, they generally have a large number of parameters that need to be optimized and validated for each new application. Here, we propose a framework for such optimization and also identify the optimal input parameter set for registration of 3D T1-weighted MRI of breast using Elastix, a widely used and freely available registration tool. A numerical simulation study was first conducted to model the breast tissue and its deformation through finite element (FE) modeling. This model generated the ground truth for evaluating the registration accuracy by providing the deformation of each voxel in the breast volume. An exhaustive search was performed over various values of 7 registration parameters (4050 different combinations of parameters were assessed) and the optimum parameter set was determined. This study showed that there was a large variation in the registration accuracy of different parameter sets ranging from 0.29 mm to 2.50 mm in median registration error and 3.71 mm to 8.90 mm in 95 percentile of the registration error. Mean registration errors of 0.32 mm, 0.29 mm, and 0.30 mm and 95 percentile errors of 3.71 mm, 5.02 mm, and 4.70 mm were obtained by the three best parameter sets. The optimal parameter set was applied to consecutive breast MRI scans of 13 patients. A radiologist identified 113 landmark pairs (~ 11 per patient) which were used to assess registration accuracy. The results demonstrated that using the optimal registration parameter set, a registration accuracy (in mm) of 3.4 [1.8 6.8] was achieved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast MRI; Elastix; Finite element analysis; Non-rigid registration

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29654424      PMCID: PMC6148821          DOI: 10.1007/s10278-018-0063-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Digit Imaging        ISSN: 0897-1889            Impact factor:   4.056


  26 in total

1.  Lesion Diagnosis Working Group report.

Authors:  M D Schnall; D M Ikeda
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 4.813

2.  Nonrigid registration using free-form deformations: application to breast MR images.

Authors:  D Rueckert; L I Sonoda; C Hayes; D L Hill; M O Leach; D J Hawkes
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 10.048

3.  Validation of nonrigid image registration using finite-element methods: application to breast MR images.

Authors:  Julia A Schnabel; Christine Tanner; Andy D Castellano-Smith; Andreas Degenhard; Martin O Leach; D Rodney Hose; Derek L G Hill; David J Hawkes
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 10.048

4.  Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS).

Authors:  Laura Liberman; Jennifer H Menell
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 2.303

5.  Analysis of shear strain imaging for classifying breast masses: finite element and phantom results.

Authors:  Haiyan Xu; Tomy Varghese; Ernest L Madsen
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 6.  Medical image registration: a review.

Authors:  Francisco P M Oliveira; João Manuel R S Tavares
Journal:  Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin       Date:  2012-03-22       Impact factor: 1.763

7.  Screening breast MR imaging: comparison of interpretation of baseline and annual follow-up studies.

Authors:  Gil Abramovici; Martha B Mainiero
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-02-01       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 8.  Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging as an imaging biomarker.

Authors:  Nola Hylton
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2006-07-10       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Elastic moduli of normal and pathological human breast tissues: an inversion-technique-based investigation of 169 samples.

Authors:  Abbas Samani; Judit Zubovits; Donald Plewes
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2007-02-16       Impact factor: 3.609

10.  Initial versus subsequent screening mammography: comparison of findings and their prognostic significance.

Authors:  S D Frankel; E A Sickles; B N Curpen; R A Sollitto; S H Ominsky; H B Galvin
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 3.959

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.