Literature DB >> 34382176

Impact of deformation on a supine-positioned image-guided breast surgery approach.

Winona L Richey1,2,3, Jon S Heiselman4,5, Ma Luo4,5, Ingrid M Meszoely5,6, Michael I Miga4,5,7,8,9.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To reduce reoperation rates for image-guided breast-conserving surgery, the enhanced sensitivity of magnetic resonance (MR) supine imaging may be leveraged. However, accurate tissue correspondence between images and their physical counterpart in the surgical presentation is challenging due to breast deformations (e.g., from patient/arm position changes, and operating room table rotation differences). In this study, standard rigid registration methods are employed and tissue deformation is characterized.
METHODS: On n = 10 healthy breasts, surface displacements were measured by comparing intraoperative fiducial locations as the arm was moved from conventional MR scanning positions (arm-down and arm-up) to the laterally extended surgical configuration. Supine MR images in the arm-down and arm-up positions were registered to mock intraoperative presentations.
RESULTS: Breast displacements from a supine MR imaging configuration to a mock surgical presentation were 28.9 ± 9.2 mm with shifts occurring primarily in the inferior/superior direction. With respect to supine MR to surgical alignment, the average fiducial, target, and maximum target registration errors were 9.0 ± 1.7 mm, 9.3 ± 1.7 mm, and 20.0 ± 7.6 mm, respectively. Even when maintaining similar arm positions in the MR image and mock surgery, the respective averages were 6.0 ± 1.0 mm, 6.5 ± 1.1 mm, and 12.5 ± 2.8 mm.
CONCLUSION: From supine MR positioning to surgical presentation, the breast undergoes large displacements (9.9-70.1 mm). The data also suggest that significant nonrigid deformations (9.3 ± 1.7 mm with 20.0 mm average maximum) exist that need to be considered in image guidance and modeling applications.
© 2021. CARS.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast-conserving surgery; Computational modeling; Image-guided surgery; Lumpectomy; Registration; Supine MR

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34382176      PMCID: PMC9237955          DOI: 10.1007/s11548-021-02452-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg        ISSN: 1861-6410            Impact factor:   3.421


  38 in total

1.  Reexcision--The Other Breast Cancer Epidemic.

Authors:  Hiram S Cody; Kimberly J Van Zee
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2015-08-06       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Recorded quadrant incidence of female breast cancer in Great Britain suggests a disproportionate increase in the upper outer quadrant of the breast.

Authors:  Philippa D Darbre
Journal:  Anticancer Res       Date:  2005 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.480

3.  Breast-conserving surgery using projection and reproduction techniques of surgical-position breast MRI in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.

Authors:  Masahiro Sakakibara; Takeshi Nagashima; Takafumi Sangai; Rikiya Nakamura; Hiroshi Fujimoto; Manabu Arai; Toshiki Kazama; Hideyuki Hashimoto; Yukio Nakatani; Masaru Miyazaki
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2008-04-14       Impact factor: 6.113

4.  Surgeon performed continuous intraoperative ultrasound guidance decreases re-excisions and mastectomy rates in breast cancer.

Authors:  Guldeniz Karadeniz Cakmak; Ali U Emre; Oge Tascilar; Burak Bahadir; Selcuk Ozkan
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2017-03-02       Impact factor: 4.380

5.  Radioactive seed localization for breast conservation surgery: Low positive margin rate with no learning curve.

Authors:  Cristine S Velazco; Nabil Wasif; Barbara A Pockaj; Richard J Gray
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2017-09-19       Impact factor: 2.565

6.  Intraoperative ultrasound guidance for excision of non-palpable invasive breast cancer: a hospital-based series and an overview of the literature.

Authors:  M W Barentsz; T van Dalen; P D Gobardhan; V Bongers; C I Perre; R M Pijnappel; M A A J van den Bosch; H M Verkooijen
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2012-07-25       Impact factor: 4.872

7.  Surgeon Volume, Patient Age, and Tumor-Related Factors Influence the Need for Re-Excision After Breast-Conserving Surgery.

Authors:  L Hughes; J Hamm; C McGahan; C Baliski
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2016-10-07       Impact factor: 5.344

8.  Textual fiducial detection in breast conserving surgery for a near-real time image guidance system.

Authors:  Winona L Richey; Jon Heiselman; Ma Luo; Ingrid M Meszoely; Michael I Miga
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2020-03-16

Review 9.  Contrast-enhanced MRI for breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Ritse M Mann; Christiane K Kuhl; Linda Moy
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2019-01-18       Impact factor: 4.813

10.  Reoperation after breast-conserving surgery for cancer in Australia: statewide cohort study of linked hospital data.

Authors:  Marina T van Leeuwen; Michael O Falster; Claire M Vajdic; Philip J Crowe; Sanja Lujic; Elizabeth Klaes; Louisa Jorm; Art Sedrakyan
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-04-10       Impact factor: 2.692

View more
  2 in total

1.  Breast image registration for surgery: Insights on material mechanics modeling.

Authors:  Morgan J Ringel; Winona L Richey; Jon Heiselman; Ma Luo; Ingrid M Meszoely; Michael I Miga
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2022-04-04

2.  Tumor deformation correction for an image guidance system in breast conserving surgery.

Authors:  Winona L Richey; Jon Heiselman; Morgan Ringel; Ingrid M Meszoely; Michael I Miga
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2022-04-04
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.