PURPOSE: To develop and demonstrate the efficacy of a novel head-and-neck multimodality image registration technique using deep-learning-based cross-modality synthesis. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-five head-and-neck patients received magnetic resonance (MR) and computed tomography (CT) (CTaligned ) scans on the same day with the same immobilization. Fivefold cross validation was used with all of the MR-CT pairs to train a neural network to generate synthetic CTs from MR images. Twenty-four of 25 patients also had a separate CT without immobilization (CTnon-aligned ) and were used for testing. CTnon-aligned 's were deformed to the synthetic CT, and compared to CTnon-aligned registered to MR. The same registrations were performed from MR to CTnon-aligned and from synthetic CT to CTnon-aligned . All registrations used B-splines for modeling the deformation, and mutual information for the objective. Results were evaluated using the 95% Hausdorff distance among spinal cord contours, landmark error, inverse consistency, and Jacobian determinant of the estimated deformation fields. RESULTS: When large initial rigid misalignment is present, registering CT to MRI-derived synthetic CT aligns the cord better than a direct registration. The average landmark error decreased from 9.8 ± 3.1 mm in MR→CTnon-aligned to 6.0 ± 2.1 mm in CTsynth →CTnon-aligned deformable registrations. In the CT to MR direction, the landmark error decreased from 10.0 ± 4.3 mm in CTnon-aligned →MR deformable registrations to 6.6 ± 2.0 mm in CTnon-aligned →CTsynth deformable registrations. The Jacobian determinant had an average value of 0.98. The proposed method also demonstrated improved inverse consistency over the direct method. CONCLUSIONS: We showed that using a deep learning-derived synthetic CT in lieu of an MR for MR→CT and CT→MR deformable registration offers superior results to direct multimodal registration.
PURPOSE: To develop and demonstrate the efficacy of a novel head-and-neck multimodality image registration technique using deep-learning-based cross-modality synthesis. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-five head-and-neck patients received magnetic resonance (MR) and computed tomography (CT) (CTaligned ) scans on the same day with the same immobilization. Fivefold cross validation was used with all of the MR-CT pairs to train a neural network to generate synthetic CTs from MR images. Twenty-four of 25 patients also had a separate CT without immobilization (CTnon-aligned ) and were used for testing. CTnon-aligned 's were deformed to the synthetic CT, and compared to CTnon-aligned registered to MR. The same registrations were performed from MR to CTnon-aligned and from synthetic CT to CTnon-aligned . All registrations used B-splines for modeling the deformation, and mutual information for the objective. Results were evaluated using the 95% Hausdorff distance among spinal cord contours, landmark error, inverse consistency, and Jacobian determinant of the estimated deformation fields. RESULTS: When large initial rigid misalignment is present, registering CT to MRI-derived synthetic CT aligns the cord better than a direct registration. The average landmark error decreased from 9.8 ± 3.1 mm in MR→CTnon-aligned to 6.0 ± 2.1 mm in CTsynth →CTnon-aligned deformable registrations. In the CT to MR direction, the landmark error decreased from 10.0 ± 4.3 mm in CTnon-aligned →MR deformable registrations to 6.6 ± 2.0 mm in CTnon-aligned →CTsynth deformable registrations. The Jacobian determinant had an average value of 0.98. The proposed method also demonstrated improved inverse consistency over the direct method. CONCLUSIONS: We showed that using a deep learning-derived synthetic CT in lieu of an MR for MR→CT and CT→MR deformable registration offers superior results to direct multimodal registration.
Authors: Mattias P Heinrich; Mark Jenkinson; Manav Bhushan; Tahreema Matin; Fergus V Gleeson; Sir Michael Brady; Julia A Schnabel Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2012-05-31 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: Charlotte L Brouwer; Roel J H M Steenbakkers; Jean Bourhis; Wilfried Budach; Cai Grau; Vincent Grégoire; Marcel van Herk; Anne Lee; Philippe Maingon; Chris Nutting; Brian O'Sullivan; Sandro V Porceddu; David I Rosenthal; Nanna M Sijtsema; Johannes A Langendijk Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2015-08-13 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Peter L Roberson; P William McLaughlin; Vrinda Narayana; Sara Troyer; George V Hixson; Marc L Kessler Journal: Med Phys Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Andrew B Hwang; Stephen L Bacharach; Sue S Yom; Vivian K Weinberg; Jeanne M Quivey; Benjamin L Franc; Ping Xia Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-12-10 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Stefan Klein; Marius Staring; Keelin Murphy; Max A Viergever; Josien P W Pluim Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2009-11-17 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Robert Chuter; Robin Prestwich; David Bird; Andrew Scarsbrook; Jonathan Sykes; Daniel Wilson; Richard Speight Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2016-08-03 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Monica F Danilevicz; Mitchell Gill; Robyn Anderson; Jacqueline Batley; Mohammed Bennamoun; Philipp E Bayer; David Edwards Journal: Front Genet Date: 2022-05-18 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Tonghe Wang; Yang Lei; Yabo Fu; Jacob F Wynne; Walter J Curran; Tian Liu; Xiaofeng Yang Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2020-12-11 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Jin Uk Heo; Feifei Zhou; Robert Jones; Jiamin Zheng; Xin Song; Pengjiang Qian; Atallah Baydoun; Melanie S Traughber; Jung-Wen Kuo; Rose Al Helo; Cheryl Thompson; Norbert Avril; Daniel DeVincent; Harold Hunt; Amit Gupta; Navid Faraji; Michael Z Kharouta; Arash Kardan; David Bitonte; Christian B Langmack; Aaron Nelson; Alexandria Kruzer; Min Yao; Jennifer Dorth; John Nakayama; Steven E Waggoner; Tithi Biswas; Eleanor Harris; Susan Sandstrom; Bryan J Traughber; Raymond F Muzic Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2022-08-03 Impact factor: 2.243