Literature DB >> 33903011

Automatic Segmentation of Bone Selective MR Images for Visualization and Craniometry of the Cranial Vault.

Carrie E Zimmerman1, Pulkit Khandelwal2, Long Xie3, Hyunyeol Lee4, Hee Kwon Song4, Paul A Yushkevich3, Arastoo Vossough5, Scott P Bartlett6, Felix W Wehrli7.   

Abstract

RATIONALE AND
OBJECTIVES: Solid-state MRI has been shown to provide a radiation-free alternative imaging strategy to CT. However, manual image segmentation to produce bone-selective MR-based 3D renderings is time and labor intensive, thereby acting as a bottleneck in clinical practice. The objective of this study was to evaluate an automatic multi-atlas segmentation pipeline for use on cranial vault images entirely circumventing prior manual intervention, and to assess concordance of craniometric measurements between pipeline produced MRI and CT-based 3D skull renderings.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dual-RF, dual-echo, 3D UTE pulse sequence MR data were obtained at 3T on 30 healthy subjects along with low-dose CT images between December 2018 to January 2020 for this prospective study. The four-point MRI datasets (two RF pulse widths and two echo times) were combined to produce bone-specific images. CT images were thresholded and manually corrected to segment the cranial vault. CT images were then rigidly registered to MRI using mutual information. The corresponding cranial vault segmentations were then transformed to MRI. The "ground truth" segmentations served as reference for the MR images. Subsequently, an automated multi-atlas pipeline was used to segment the bone-selective images. To compare manually and automatically segmented MR images, the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and Hausdorff distance (HD) were computed, and craniometric measurements between CT and automated-pipeline MRI-based segmentations were examined via Lin's concordance coefficient (LCC).
RESULTS: Automated segmentation reduced the need for an expert to obtain segmentation. Average DSC was 90.86 ± 1.94%, and average 95th percentile HD was 1.65 ± 0.44 mm between ground truth and automated segmentations. MR-based measurements differed from CT-based measurements by 0.73-1.2 mm on key craniometric measurements. LCC for distances between CT and MR-based landmarks were vertex-basion: 0.906, left-right frontozygomatic suture: 0.780, and glabella-opisthocranium: 0.956 for the three measurements.
CONCLUSION: Good agreement between CT and automated MR-based 3D cranial vault renderings has been achieved, thereby eliminating the laborious manual segmentation process. Target applications comprise craniofacial surgery as well as imaging of traumatic injuries and masses involving both bone and soft tissue.
Copyright © 2021 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  automatic segmentation; bone selective MRI; craniometry

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33903011      PMCID: PMC8536795          DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2021.03.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Radiol        ISSN: 1076-6332            Impact factor:   3.173


  31 in total

1.  An unbiased iterative group registration template for cortical surface analysis.

Authors:  Oliver Lyttelton; Maxime Boucher; Steven Robbins; Alan Evans
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2006-12-26       Impact factor: 6.556

2.  Rapid dual-RF, dual-echo, 3D ultrashort echo time craniofacial imaging: A feasibility study.

Authors:  Hyunyeol Lee; Xia Zhao; Hee Kwon Song; Rosaline Zhang; Scott P Bartlett; Felix W Wehrli
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2018-12-18       Impact factor: 4.668

3.  Ultra-Low-Dose CT of the Thorax Using Iterative Reconstruction: Evaluation of Image Quality and Radiation Dose Reduction.

Authors:  Yookyung Kim; Yoon Kyung Kim; Bo Eun Lee; Seok Jeong Lee; Yon Ju Ryu; Jin Hwa Lee; Jung Hyun Chang
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Accuracy of computer-assisted orthognathic surgery.

Authors:  Giacomo De Riu; Paola Ilaria Virdis; Silvio Mario Meloni; Aurea Lumbau; Luigi Angelo Vaira
Journal:  J Craniomaxillofac Surg       Date:  2017-12-05       Impact factor: 2.078

5.  Cranial ultrasound is a reliable first step imaging in children with suspected craniosynostosis.

Authors:  L Pogliani; G V Zuccotti; M Furlanetto; V Giudici; A Erbetta; L Chiapparini; L Valentini
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2017-06-03       Impact factor: 1.475

6.  Bone-Selective MRI as a Nonradiative Alternative to CT for Craniofacial Imaging.

Authors:  Rosaline Zhang; Hyunyeol Lee; Xia Zhao; Hee Kwon Song; Arastoo Vossough; Felix W Wehrli; Scott P Bartlett
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2020-04-13       Impact factor: 3.173

7.  Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007.

Authors:  Amy Berrington de González; Mahadevappa Mahesh; Kwang-Pyo Kim; Mythreyi Bhargavan; Rebecca Lewis; Fred Mettler; Charles Land
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2009-12-14

8.  Symmetric diffeomorphic image registration with cross-correlation: evaluating automated labeling of elderly and neurodegenerative brain.

Authors:  B B Avants; C L Epstein; M Grossman; J C Gee
Journal:  Med Image Anal       Date:  2007-06-23       Impact factor: 8.545

9.  Self-Navigated Three-Dimensional Ultrashort Echo Time Technique for Motion-Corrected Skull MRI.

Authors:  Hyunyeol Lee; Xia Zhao; Hee Kwon Song; Felix W Wehrli
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2020-03-04       Impact factor: 10.048

10.  Automated bone segmentation from dental CBCT images using patch-based sparse representation and convex optimization.

Authors:  Li Wang; Ken Chung Chen; Yaozong Gao; Feng Shi; Shu Liao; Gang Li; Steve G F Shen; Jin Yan; Philip K M Lee; Ben Chow; Nancy X Liu; James J Xia; Dinggang Shen
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 4.071

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.