OBJECTIVE: This investigation was performed to evaluate the registration accuracy between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and pathology using three-dimensional (3-D) printed molds. METHODS: Tissue-mimicking prostate phantoms were manufactured with embedded fiducials. The fiducials were used to measure and compare target registration error (TRE) between phantoms that were sliced by hand versus phantoms that were sliced within 3-D-printed molds. Subsequently, ten radical prostatectomy specimens were placed inside molds, scanned with MRI, and then sliced. The ex vivo scan was used to assess the true location of whole mount (WM) slides relative to in vivo MRI. The TRE between WM and in vivo MRI was measured using anatomic landmarks. RESULTS: Manually sliced phantoms had a 4.1-mm mean TRE, whereas mold-sliced phantoms had a 1.9-mm mean TRE. Similarly, mold-assisted slicing reduced mean angular misalignment around the left-right (LR) anatomic axis from 10.7° to 4.5°. However, ex vivo MRI revealed that excised prostates were misaligned within molds, including a mean 14° rotation about the LR axis. The mean in-plane TRE was 3.3 mm using molds alone and 2.2 mm after registration was corrected with ex vivo MRI. CONCLUSION: Patient-specific molds improved accuracy relative to manual slicing techniques in a phantom model. However, the registration accuracy of surgically resected specimens was limited by their imperfect fit within molds. This limitation can be overcome with the addition of ex vivo imaging. SIGNIFICANCE: The accuracy of 3-D-printed molds was characterized, quantifying their utility for facilitating MRI-pathology registration.
OBJECTIVE: This investigation was performed to evaluate the registration accuracy between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and pathology using three-dimensional (3-D) printed molds. METHODS: Tissue-mimicking prostate phantoms were manufactured with embedded fiducials. The fiducials were used to measure and compare target registration error (TRE) between phantoms that were sliced by hand versus phantoms that were sliced within 3-D-printed molds. Subsequently, ten radical prostatectomy specimens were placed inside molds, scanned with MRI, and then sliced. The ex vivo scan was used to assess the true location of whole mount (WM) slides relative to in vivo MRI. The TRE between WM and in vivo MRI was measured using anatomic landmarks. RESULTS: Manually sliced phantoms had a 4.1-mm mean TRE, whereas mold-sliced phantoms had a 1.9-mm mean TRE. Similarly, mold-assisted slicing reduced mean angular misalignment around the left-right (LR) anatomic axis from 10.7° to 4.5°. However, ex vivo MRI revealed that excised prostates were misaligned within molds, including a mean 14° rotation about the LR axis. The mean in-plane TRE was 3.3 mm using molds alone and 2.2 mm after registration was corrected with ex vivo MRI. CONCLUSION:Patient-specific molds improved accuracy relative to manual slicing techniques in a phantom model. However, the registration accuracy of surgically resected specimens was limited by their imperfect fit within molds. This limitation can be overcome with the addition of ex vivo imaging. SIGNIFICANCE: The accuracy of 3-D-printed molds was characterized, quantifying their utility for facilitating MRI-pathology registration.
Authors: Charles R Meyer; Bradford A Moffat; Kyle K Kuszpit; Peyton L Bland; Paul E Mckeever; Timothy D Johnson; Thomas L Chenevert; Alnawaz Rehemtulla; Brian D Ross Journal: Mol Imaging Date: 2006 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 4.488
Authors: Jonathan Chappelow; B Nicolas Bloch; Neil Rofsky; Elizabeth Genega; Robert Lenkinski; William DeWolf; Anant Madabhushi Journal: Med Phys Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Li Hong Chen; Henry Ho; Richie Lazaro; Choon Hua Thng; John Yuen; Wan Sing Ng; Chris Cheng Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2010-02-24 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Eli Gibson; Cathie Crukley; Mena Gaed; José A Gómez; Madeleine Moussa; Joseph L Chin; Glenn S Bauman; Aaron Fenster; Aaron D Ward Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-07-31 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Alan Priester; Shyam Natarajan; Pooria Khoshnoodi; Daniel J Margolis; Steven S Raman; Robert E Reiter; Jiaoti Huang; Warren Grundfest; Leonard S Marks Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-07-30 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Hari Trivedi; Baris Turkbey; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Compton J Benjamin; Marcelino Bernardo; Thomas Pohida; Vijay Shah; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; W Marston Linehan; Aradhana M Venkatesan; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: Urology Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: H M Reynolds; S Williams; A Zhang; R Chakravorty; D Rawlinson; C S Ong; M Esteva; C Mitchell; B Parameswaran; M Finnegan; G Liney; A Haworth Journal: Med Phys Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Ida Sonni; Ely R Felker; Andrew T Lenis; Anthony E Sisk; Shadfar Bahri; Martin Allen-Auerbach; Wesley R Armstrong; Voraparee Suvannarerg; Teeravut Tubtawee; Tristan Grogan; David Elashoff; Matthias Eiber; Steven S Raman; Johannes Czernin; Robert E Reiter; Jeremie Calais Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-10-14 Impact factor: 11.082