Fully Automated Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion via a Probabilistic Registration Metric

被引:10
|
作者
Sparks, Rachel [1 ,2 ]
Bloch, B. Nicolas [3 ]
Feleppa, Ernest [4 ]
Barratt, Dean [5 ]
Madabhushi, Anant [2 ]
机构
[1] Rutgers State Univ, Dept Biomed Engn, Piscataway, NJ 08855 USA
[2] Case Western Reserve Univ, Dept Biomed Engn, Cleveland, OH 44106 USA
[3] Boston Univ, Boston Med Ctr, Dept Radiol, Boston, MA 02215 USA
[4] Lizzi Ctr Biomed Engn, Riverside Res, New York, NY 10001 USA
[5] UCL, Ctr Med Image Comp, London, England
来源
MEDICAL IMAGING 2013: IMAGE-GUIDED PROCEDURES, ROBOTIC INTERVENTIONS, AND MODELING | 2013年 / 8671卷
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
MRI/TRUS DATA FUSION; GUIDED BIOPSY; CANCER-DETECTION; IMAGES; MRI; SEGMENTATION; INHOMOGENEITY; BRACHYTHERAPY; SPECTROSCOPY; STATISTICS;
D O I
10.1117/12.2007610
中图分类号
R318 [生物医学工程];
学科分类号
0831 ;
摘要
In this work, we present a novel, automated, registration method to fuse magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) images of the prostate. Our methodology consists of: (1) delineating the prostate on MRI, (2) building a probabilistic model of prostate location on TRUS, and (3) aligning the MRI prostate segmentation to the TRUS probabilistic model. TRUS-guided needle biopsy is the current gold standard for prostate cancer (CaP) diagnosis. Up to 40% of CaP lesions appear isoechoic on TRUS, hence TRUS-guided biopsy cannot reliably target CaP lesions and is associated with a high false negative rate. MRI is better able to distinguish CaP from benign prostatic tissue, but requires special equipment and training. MRI-TRUS fusion, whereby MRI is acquired pre-operatively and aligned to TRUS during the biopsy procedure, allows for information from both modalities to be used to help guide the biopsy. The use of MRI and TRUS in combination to guide biopsy at least doubles the yield of positive biopsies. Previous work on MRI-TRUS fusion has involved aligning manually determined fiducials or prostate surfaces to achieve image registration. The accuracy of these methods is dependent on the reader's ability to determine fiducials or prostate surfaces with minimal error, which is a difficult and time-consuming task. Our novel, fully automated MRI-TRUS fusion method represents a significant advance over the current state-of-the-art because it does not require manual intervention after TRUS acquisition. All necessary preprocessing steps (i.e. delineation of the prostate on MRI) can be performed offline prior to the biopsy procedure. We evaluated our method on seven patient studies, with B-mode TRUS and a 1.5 T surface coil MRI. Our method has a root mean square error (RMSE) for expertly selected fiducials (consisting of the urethra, calcifications, and the centroids of CaP nodules) of 3.39 +/- 0.85 mm.
引用
收藏
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy During Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance
    Tran, Geraldine N.
    Leapman, Michael S.
    Nguyen, Hao G.
    Cowan, Janet E.
    Shinohara, Katsuto
    Westphalen, Antonio C.
    Carroll, Peter R.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2017, 72 (02) : 275 - 281
  • [32] Targeted prostate biopsy using a cognitive fusion of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound in patients with previously negative systematic biopsies and non-suspicious digital rectal exam
    Kulis, Tomislav
    Zekulic, Toni
    Alduk, Ana Marija
    Lusic, Mario
    Bulimbasic, Stela
    Ferencak, Vladimir
    Mokos, Ivica
    Hudolin, Tvrtko
    Kastelan, Zeljko
    CROATIAN MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2020, 61 (01) : 49 - 54
  • [33] Targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion
    Bockholt, Nathan
    Marks, Leonard S.
    ASIAN JOURNAL OF ANDROLOGY, 2015, 17 (06) : 870 - 873
  • [34] Target detection: Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsy
    Sonn, Geoffrey A.
    Margolis, Daniel J.
    Marks, Leonard S.
    UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2014, 32 (06) : 903 - 911
  • [35] Is it worth carrying out ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging fusion targeted biopsy on Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score 3 prostate lesions?
    Kim, Kyung Hwan
    Ku, Ja Yoon
    Park, Won Young
    Hong, Seung Baek
    Kim, Suk
    Ha, Hong Koo
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2020, 27 (05) : 431 - 438
  • [36] Diagnostic Value of Guided Biopsies: Fusion and Cognitive-registration Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Conventional Ultrasound Biopsy of the Prostate
    Oberlin, Daniel T.
    Casalino, David D.
    Miller, Frank H.
    Matulewicz, Richard S.
    Perry, Kent T.
    Nadler, Robert B.
    Kundu, Shilajit
    Catalona, William J.
    Meeks, Joshua J.
    UROLOGY, 2016, 92 : 75 - 79
  • [37] Fusion of Intraoperative Transrectal Ultrasound Images with Post-implant Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging
    Delouya, Guila
    Carrier, Jean-Francois
    Xavier-Larouche, Renee
    Hervieux, Yannick
    Beliveau-Nadeau, Dominic
    Donath, David
    Taussky, Daniel
    CUREUS, 2018, 10 (03):
  • [38] The accuracy of prostate cancer diagnosis in biopsy-naive patients using combined magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy
    Uno, Hiromi
    Taniguchi, Tomoki
    Seike, Kensaku
    Kato, Daiki
    Takai, Manabu
    Iinuma, Koji
    Horie, Kengo
    Nakane, Keita
    Koie, Takuya
    TRANSLATIONAL ANDROLOGY AND UROLOGY, 2021, 10 (07) : 2982 - 2989
  • [39] Comparison of prostate volume measured by transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging: Is transrectal ultrasound suitable to determine which patients should undergo active surveillance?
    Weiss, Brian E.
    Wein, Alan J.
    Malkowicz, S. Bruce
    Guzzo, Thomas J.
    UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2013, 31 (08) : 1436 - 1440
  • [40] The economic effect of using magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance ultrasound fusion biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis
    Hutchinson, Ryan C.
    Costa, Daniel N.
    Lotan, Yair
    UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2016, 34 (07) : 296 - 302