Comparison of Elastic and Rigid Registration during Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion-Guided Prostate Biopsy: A Multi-Operator Phantom Study
Autor: | Peter A. Pinto, Samuel Gold, Vikram Sabarwal, Alexis Cheng, Kareem Rayn, Reza Seifabadi, Peter L. Choyke, Baris Turkbey, Marcin Czarniecki, Brad Wood, Sherif Mehralivand, Jonathan Bloom, Graham R. Hale |
---|---|
Rok vydání: | 2018 |
Předmět: |
Image-Guided Biopsy
Male Prostate biopsy Urology 030232 urology & nephrology Imaging phantom 03 medical and health sciences Imaging Three-Dimensional 0302 clinical medicine Fiducial Markers Region of interest Prostate medicine Humans Ultrasonography Interventional medicine.diagnostic_test Phantoms Imaging business.industry Ultrasound Prostatic Neoplasms Magnetic resonance imaging equipment and supplies medicine.anatomical_structure 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis Elasticity Imaging Techniques Feasibility Studies business Fiducial marker Nuclear medicine Algorithms |
Zdroj: | Journal of Urology. 200:1114-1121 |
ISSN: | 1527-3792 0022-5347 |
Popis: | 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.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.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, p0.01) and elastic registration (3.94 ± 2.61 vs 6.07 ± 4.16 mm, p0.01).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. |
Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
Externí odkaz: |