Skip to main content
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/42/1/10.1118/1.4903945
1.
1.G. P. Penney, J. M. Blackall, M. S. Hamady, T. Sabharwal, A. Adam, and D. J. Hawkes, “Registration of freehand 3D ultrasound and magnetic resonance liver images,” Med. Image Anal. 8, 8194 (2004).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2003.07.003
2.
2.W. Wein, S. Brunke, A. Khamene, M. R. Callstrom, and N. Navab, “Automatic CT-ultrasound registration for diagnostic imaging and image-guided intervention,” Med. Image Anal. 12, 577585 (2008).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2008.06.006
3.
3.G. P. Penney, J. M. Blackall, D. Hayashi, T. Sabharwal, A. Adam, and D. J. Hawkes, “Overview of an ultrasound to CT or MR registration system for use in thermal ablation of liver metastases,” in Proceedings of Medical Image Understanding Analysis (The University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK, 2001).
4.
4.T. Lange, N. Papenberg, S. Heldmann, J. Modersitzki, B. Fischer, H. Lamecher, and P. M. Schlag, “3D ultrasound-CT registration of the liver using combined landmark-intensity information,” Int. J. Comput. Assist. Radiol. Surg. 4, 7988 (2009).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11548-008-0270-1
5.
5.L. Crocetti, R. Lencioni, S. DeBeni, T. See, C. Pina, and C. Bartolozzi, “Targeting liver lesions for radiofrequency ablation: An experimental feasibility study using a CT-US fusion imaging system,” Invest. Radiol. 43, 3339 (2008).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0b013e31815597dc
6.
6.D. Lee, W. H. Nam, J. Y. Lee, and J. B. Ra, “Non-rigid registration between 3D ultrasound and CT images of the liver based on intensity and gradient information,” Phys. Med. Biol. 56, 117137 (2011).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/56/1/008
7.
7.W. Birkfellner, F. Watzinger, F. Wanschitz, R. Ewers, and H. Bergmann, “Calibration of tracking systems in a surgical environment,” IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 17, 737742 (1998).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/42.736028
8.
8.T. M. Peters, “Image-guidance for surgical procedures,” Phys. Med. Biol. 51, 505540 (2006).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/51/14/R01
9.
9.M. Schneider and C. Stevens, “Development and testing of a new magnetic tracking device for image guidance,” Proc. SPIE 6509, 1722 (2007).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.713249
10.
10.A. Cifor, L. Risser, M. P. Heinrich, D. Chung, and J. A. Schnabel, “Rigid registration of untracked freehand 2D ultrasound sweeps to 3D CT of liver tumours,” Abdom. Imaging 8198, 155164 (2013).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41083-3_18
11.
11.J. M. Blackall, G. P. Penney, A. P. King, and D. J. Hawkes, “Alignment of sparse freehand 3-D ultrasound with preoperative images of the liver using models of respiratory motion and deformation,” IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 24, 14051416 (2005).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2005.856751
12.
12.N. D. Glossop, “Advantages of optical compared with electromagnetic tracking,” J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 91, 2328 (2009).
http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.H.01362
13.
13.W. H. Nam, D.-G. Kang, D. Lee, and J. B. Ra, “Anatomical registration between 3D intra-operative ultrasound and pre-operative CT images of the liver based on robust edge matching,” Phys. Med. Biol. 57, 6991 (2012).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/57/1/69
14.
14.C. Weon, W. H. Nam, D. Lee, Y. Hwang, J.-B. Kim, W.-C. Bang, and J. B. Ra, “Position estimation of moving liver lesion based on registration between 2D ultrasound and 4D MR images,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (IEEE, Orlando, FL, 2012), pp. 16771680.
15.
15.C. Weon, W. H. Nam, Y. Hwang, J.-B. Kim, W.-C. Bang, and J. B. Ra, “Robust feature based pre-registration of 3D MR image to 3D B-mode ultrasound image of the liver,” in Proceedings of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (ISMRM, Salt Lake City, UT, 2013), p. 1842.
16.
16.C. Wachinger, M. Yigitsoy, E.-J. Rijkhorst, and N. Navab, “Manifold learning for image-based breathing gating in ultrasound and MRI,” Med. Image Anal. 16, 806818 (2012).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2011.11.008
17.
17.Y. Tong, J. K. Udupa, K. C. Ciesielski, J. M. Mcdonough, A. Mong, and R. M. Campbell, “Graph-based retrospective 4D image construction from free-breathing MRI slice acquisitions,” Proc. SPIE 9038, 90380I (2014).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.2044419
18.
18.D. Rueckert, L. Sonoda, C. Hayes, D. Hill, M. Leach, and D. Hawkes, “Nonrigid registration using free-form deformations: Application to breast MR images,” IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 18, 712721 (1999).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/42.796284
19.
19.W. H. Nam, I. J. Ahn, K. M. Kim, B. I. Kim, and J. B. Ra, “Motion-compensated PET image reconstruction with respiratory-matched attenuation correction using two low-dose inhale and exhale CT images,” Phys. Med. Biol. 58, 73557374 (2013).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/58/20/7355
20.
20.R. Fisher, S. Perkins, A. Walker, and E. Wolfart, Hypermedia Image Processing Reference, 1st ed. (Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1996).
21.
21.I. Ragnemalm, “The Euclidean distance transform in arbitrary dimensions,” Pattern Recognit. Lett. 14, 883888 (1993).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-8655(93)90152-4
22.
22.E. Lomonosov, D. Chetverikov, and A. Ekart, “Pre-registration of arbitrarily oriented 3D surfaces using a genetic algorithm,” Pattern Recognit. Lett. 27, 12011208 (2006).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2005.07.018
23.
23.Y. S. Kim, J. H. Lee, and J. B. Ra, “Multi-sensor image registration based on intensity and edge orientation information,” Pattern Recognit. 41, 33563365 (2008).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2008.04.017
24.
24.G. P. Penney, “Applications in image guided interventions,” in IEEE ISBI Tutorial Notes: Tutorial on Biomedical Image Registration (IEEE, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 2010).
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/42/1/10.1118/1.4903945
Loading
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/42/1/10.1118/1.4903945
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aapm/journal/medphys/42/1/10.1118/1.4903945
2014-12-24
2016-09-30

Abstract

Registration between 2D ultrasound (US) and 3D preoperative magnetic resonance (MR) (or computed tomography, CT) images has been studied recently for US-guided intervention. However, the existing techniques have some limits, either in the registration speed or the performance. The purpose of this work is to develop a real-time and fully automatic registration system between two intermodal images of the liver, and subsequently an indirect lesion positioning/tracking algorithm based on the registration result, for image-guided interventions.

The proposed position tracking system consists of three stages. In the preoperative stage, the authors acquire several 3D preoperative MR (or CT) images at different respiratory phases. Based on the transformations obtained from nonrigid registration of the acquired 3D images, they then generate a 4D preoperative image along the respiratory phase. In the intraoperative preparatory stage, they properly attach a 3D US transducer to the patient’s body and fix its pose using a holding mechanism. They then acquire a couple of respiratory-controlled 3D US images. Via the rigid registration of these US images to the 3D preoperative images in the 4D image, the pose information of the fixed-pose 3D US transducer is determined with respect to the preoperative image coordinates. As feature(s) to use for the rigid registration, they may choose either internal liver vessels or the inferior vena cava. Since the latter is especially useful in patients with a diffuse liver disease, the authors newly propose using it. In the intraoperative real-time stage, they acquire 2D US images in real-time from the fixed-pose transducer. For each US image, they select candidates for its corresponding 2D preoperative slice from the 4D preoperative MR (or CT) image, based on the predetermined pose information of the transducer. The correct corresponding image is then found among those candidates via real-time 2D registration based on a gradient-based similarity measure. Finally, if needed, they obtain the position information of the liver lesion using the 3D preoperative image to which the registered 2D preoperative slice belongs.

The proposed method was applied to 23 clinical datasets and quantitative evaluations were conducted. With the exception of one clinical dataset that included US images of extremely low quality, 22 datasets of various liver status were successfully applied in the evaluation. Experimental results showed that the registration error between the anatomical features of US and preoperative MR images is less than 3 mm on average. The lesion tracking error was also found to be less than 5 mm at maximum.

A new system has been proposed for real-time registration between 2D US and successive multiple 3D preoperative MR/CT images of the liver and was applied for indirect lesion tracking for image-guided intervention. The system is fully automatic and robust even with images that had low quality due to patient status. Through visual examinations and quantitative evaluations, it was verified that the proposed system can provide high lesion tracking accuracy as well as high registration accuracy, at performance levels which were acceptable for various clinical applications.

Loading

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/aapm/journal/medphys/42/1/1.4903945.html;jsessionid=MdHC6Rg_O63AN-uhc3HMCsS_.x-aip-live-03?itemId=/content/aapm/journal/medphys/42/1/10.1118/1.4903945&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah&containerItemId=content/aapm/journal/medphys
true
true

Access Key

  • FFree Content
  • OAOpen Access Content
  • SSubscribed Content
  • TFree Trial Content
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
/content/realmedia?fmt=ahah&adPositionList=
&advertTargetUrl=//oascentral.aip.org/RealMedia/ads/&sitePageValue=online.medphys.org/42/1/10.1118/1.4903945&pageURL=http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapm/journal/medphys/42/1/10.1118/1.4903945'
Right1,Right2,Right3,