Graham R Hale1, Marcin Czarniecki2, Alexis Cheng3, Jonathan B Bloom1, Reza Seifabadi3, Samuel A Gold1, Kareem N Rayn1, Vikram K Sabarwal4, Sherif Mehralivand5, Peter L Choyke2, Baris Turkbey2, Brad Wood3, Peter A Pinto6. 1. Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 2. Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 3. Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 4. Department of Urology, George Washington University, Washington, D. C. 5. Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, University Medical Center Mainz, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Germany. 6. Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. Electronic address: pintop@mail.nih.gov.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The relative value of rigid or elastic registration during magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy has been poorly studied. We compared registration errors (the distance between a region of interest and fiducial markers) between rigid and elastic registration during fusion guided prostate biopsy using a prostate phantom model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four gold fiducial markers visible on magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound were placed throughout 1 phantom prostate model. The phantom underwent magnetic resonance imaging and the fiducial markers were labeled as regions of interest. An experienced user and a novice user of fusion guided prostate biopsy targeted regions of interest and then the corresponding fiducial markers on ultrasound after rigid and then elastic registration. Registration errors were compared. RESULTS: A total of 224 registration error measurements were recorded. Overall elastic registration did not provide significantly improved registration error over rigid registration (mean ± SD 4.87 ± 3.50 vs 4.11 ± 2.09 mm, p = 0.05). However, lesions near the edge of the phantom showed increased registration errors when using elastic registration (5.70 ± 3.43 vs 3.23 ± 1.68 mm, p = 0.03). Compared to the novice user the experienced user reported decreased registration error with rigid registration (3.25 ± 1.49 vs 4.98 ± 2.10 mm, p <0.01) and elastic registration (3.94 ± 2.61 vs 6.07 ± 4.16 mm, p <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference in registration errors between rigid and elastic registration overall but rigid registration decreased the registration error of targets near the prostate edge. Additionally, operator experience reduced registration errors regardless of the registration method. Therefore, elastic registration algorithms cannot serve as a replacement for attention to detail during the registration process and anatomical landmarks indicating accurate registration when beginning the procedure and before targeting each region of interest.
PURPOSE: The relative value of rigid or elastic registration during magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy has been poorly studied. We compared registration errors (the distance between a region of interest and fiducial markers) between rigid and elastic registration during fusion guided prostate biopsy using a prostate phantom model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four gold fiducial markers visible on magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound were placed throughout 1 phantom prostate model. The phantom underwent magnetic resonance imaging and the fiducial markers were labeled as regions of interest. An experienced user and a novice user of fusion guided prostate biopsy targeted regions of interest and then the corresponding fiducial markers on ultrasound after rigid and then elastic registration. Registration errors were compared. RESULTS: A total of 224 registration error measurements were recorded. Overall elastic registration did not provide significantly improved registration error over rigid registration (mean ± SD 4.87 ± 3.50 vs 4.11 ± 2.09 mm, p = 0.05). However, lesions near the edge of the phantom showed increased registration errors when using elastic registration (5.70 ± 3.43 vs 3.23 ± 1.68 mm, p = 0.03). Compared to the novice user the experienced user reported decreased registration error with rigid registration (3.25 ± 1.49 vs 4.98 ± 2.10 mm, p <0.01) and elastic registration (3.94 ± 2.61 vs 6.07 ± 4.16 mm, p <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference in registration errors between rigid and elastic registration overall but rigid registration decreased the registration error of targets near the prostate edge. Additionally, operator experience reduced registration errors regardless of the registration method. Therefore, elastic registration algorithms cannot serve as a replacement for attention to detail during the registration process and anatomical landmarks indicating accurate registration when beginning the procedure and before targeting each region of interest.
Authors: Stijn W T P J Heijmink; Tom W J Scheenen; Emile N J T van Lin; Andries G Visser; Lambertus A L M Kiemeney; J Alfred Witjes; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-11-25 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: François Cornud; Mathieu Roumiguié; Nicolas Barry de Longchamps; Guillaume Ploussard; Eric Bruguière; Daniel Portalez; Bernard Malavaud Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-01-22 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Bahram Marami; Shahin Sirouspour; Suha Ghoul; Jeremy Cepek; Sean R H Davidson; David W Capson; John Trachtenberg; Aaron Fenster Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2015-01-08 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: Sheng Xu; Jochen Kruecker; Baris Turkbey; Neil Glossop; Anurag K Singh; Peter Choyke; Peter Pinto; Bradford J Wood Journal: Comput Aided Surg Date: 2008-09
Authors: Yongbok Kim; I-Chow J Hsu; Jean Pouliot; Susan Moyher Noworolski; Daniel B Vigneron; John Kurhanewicz Journal: Med Phys Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: B Calio; A Sidana; D Sugano; S Gaur; A Jain; M Maruf; S Xu; P Yan; J Kruecker; M Merino; P Choyke; B Turkbey; B Wood; P Pinto Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Masatomo Kaneko; Dordaneh Sugano; Amir H Lebastchi; Vinay Duddalwar; Jamal Nabhani; Christopher Haiman; Inderbir S Gill; Giovanni E Cacciamani; Andre Luis Abreu Journal: Curr Urol Rep Date: 2021-03-22 Impact factor: 3.092
Authors: Magdalena Görtz; Joanne Nyaboe Nyarangi-Dix; Lars Pursche; Viktoria Schütz; Philipp Reimold; Constantin Schwab; Albrecht Stenzinger; Holger Sültmann; Stefan Duensing; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; David Bonekamp; Markus Hohenfellner; Jan Philipp Radtke Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-02-10 Impact factor: 6.639