Semi-automatic Deformable Registration of Prostate MR Images to Pathological Slices

Overview

Journal J Magn Reson Imaging

Date 2010 Oct 30

PMID 21031521

Citations 21

Authors

Yousef Mazaheri

Louisa Bokacheva

Dirk-Jan Kroon

Oguz Akin

Hedvig Hricak

Daniel Chamudot

Samson Fine

Jason A Koutcher

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: To present a semi-automatic deformable registration algorithm for co-registering T2-weighted (T2w) images of the prostate with whole-mount pathological sections of prostatectomy specimens.

Materials And Methods: Twenty-four patients underwent 1.5 Tesla (T) endorectal MR imaging before radical prostatectomy with whole-mount step-section pathologic analysis of surgical specimens. For each patient, the T2w imaging containing the largest area of tumor was manually matched with the corresponding pathologic slice. The prostate was co-registered using a free-form deformation (FFD) algorithm based on B-splines. Registration quality was assessed through differences between prostate diameters measured in right-left (RL) and anteroposterior (AP) directions on T2w images and pathologic slices and calculation of the Dice similarity coefficient, D, for the whole prostate (WP), the peripheral zone (PZ) and the transition zone (TZ).

Results: The mean differences in diameters measured on pathology and MR imaging in the RL direction and the AP direction were 0.49 cm and -0.63 cm, respectively, before registration and 0.10 cm and -0.11 cm, respectively, after registration. The mean D values for the WP, PZ and TZ, were 0.76, 0.65, and 0.77, respectively, before registration and increased to 0.91, 0.76, and 0.85, respectively, after registration. The improvements in D were significant for all three tissues (P < 0.001 for all).

Conclusion: The proposed semi-automatic method enabled successful co-registration of anatomical prostate MR images to pathologic slices.

Citing Articles

The impact of the co-registration technique and analysis methodology in comparison studies between advanced imaging modalities and whole-mount-histology reference in primary prostate cancer.

Zamboglou C, Kramer M, Kiefer S, Bronsert P, Ceci L, Sigle A Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1):5836.

PMID: 33712662 PMC: 7954803. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-85028-5.

Accurate validation of ultrasound imaging of prostate cancer: a review of challenges in registration of imaging and histopathology.

Wildeboer R, Van Sloun R, Postema A, Mannaerts C, Gayet M, Beerlage H J Ultrasound. 2018; 21(3):197-207.

PMID: 30062440 PMC: 6113189. DOI: 10.1007/s40477-018-0311-8.

Validation of biomechanical deformable image registration in the abdomen, thorax, and pelvis in a commercial radiotherapy treatment planning system.

Velec M, Moseley J, Svensson S, Hardemark B, Jaffray D, Brock K Med Phys. 2017; 44(7):3407-3417.

PMID: 28453911 PMC: 5535790. DOI: 10.1002/mp.12307.

Improved Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Pathology Correlation With Imaging-Derived, 3D-Printed, Patient-Specific Whole-Mount Molds of the Prostate.

Costa D, Chatzinoff Y, Passoni N, Kapur P, Roehrborn C, Xi Y Invest Radiol. 2017; 52(9):507-513.

PMID: 28379863 PMC: 5544596. DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000372.

3D volume reconstruction from serial breast specimen radiographs for mapping between histology and 3D whole specimen imaging.

Mertzanidou T, Hipwell J, Reis S, Hawkes D, Bejnordi B, Dalmis M Med Phys. 2017; 44(3):935-948.

PMID: 28064435 PMC: 6849622. DOI: 10.1002/mp.12077.

References

Bland J, Altman D . Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986; 1(8476):307-10. View

Thompson P, Toga A . A surface-based technique for warping three-dimensional images of the brain. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1996; 15(4):402-17. DOI: 10.1109/42.511745. View

Meyer C, Moffat B, Kuszpit K, Bland P, McKeever P, Johnson T . A methodology for registration of a histological slide and in vivo MRI volume based on optimizing mutual information. Mol Imaging. 2006; 5(1):16-23. PMC: 2575850. View

Xu J, Humphrey P, Kibel A, Snyder A, Narra V, Ackerman J . Magnetic resonance diffusion characteristics of histologically defined prostate cancer in humans. Magn Reson Med. 2009; 61(4):842-50. PMC: 3080096. DOI: 10.1002/mrm.21896. View

Jacobs M, Windham J, Soltanian-Zadeh H, Peck D, Knight R . Registration and warping of magnetic resonance images to histological sections. Med Phys. 1999; 26(8):1568-78. DOI: 10.1118/1.598671. View

Hricak H, White S, Vigneron D, Kurhanewicz J, Kosco A, Levin D . Carcinoma of the prostate gland: MR imaging with pelvic phased-array coils versus integrated endorectal--pelvic phased-array coils. Radiology. 1994; 193(3):703-9. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.193.3.7972810. View

McNeal J, Price H, Redwine E, Freiha F, Stamey T . Stage A versus stage B adenocarcinoma of the prostate: morphological comparison and biological significance. J Urol. 1988; 139(1):61-5. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)42293-2. View

Yu K, Hricak H, Alagappan R, Chernoff D, Bacchetti P, Zaloudek C . Detection of extracapsular extension of prostate carcinoma with endorectal and phased-array coil MR imaging: multivariate feature analysis. Radiology. 1997; 202(3):697-702. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.202.3.9051019. View

Kybic J, Unser M . Fast parametric elastic image registration. IEEE Trans Image Process. 2008; 12(11):1427-42. DOI: 10.1109/TIP.2003.813139. View

10.

Bharatha A, Hirose M, Hata N, Warfield S, FERRANT M, Zou K . Evaluation of three-dimensional finite element-based deformable registration of pre- and intraoperative prostate imaging. Med Phys. 2002; 28(12):2551-60. DOI: 10.1118/1.1414009. View

11.

Stamey T, McNeal J, Yemoto C, Sigal B, Johnstone I . Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer. JAMA. 1999; 281(15):1395-400. DOI: 10.1001/jama.281.15.1395. View

12.

Park H, Piert M, Khan A, Shah R, Hussain H, Siddiqui J . Registration methodology for histological sections and in vivo imaging of human prostate. Acad Radiol. 2008; 15(8):1027-39. PMC: 2646010. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2008.01.022. View

13.

Zelhof B, Pickles M, Liney G, Gibbs P, Rodrigues G, Kraus S . Correlation of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance data with cellularity in prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2008; 103(7):883-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08130.x. View

14.

Yossepowitch O, Sircar K, Scardino P, Ohori M, Kattan M, Wheeler T . Bladder neck involvement in pathological stage pT4 radical prostatectomy specimens is not an independent prognostic factor. J Urol. 2002; 168(5):2011-5. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64284-X. View

15.

Mazaheri Y, Hricak H, Fine S, Akin O, Shukla-Dave A, Ishill N . Prostate tumor volume measurement with combined T2-weighted imaging and diffusion-weighted MR: correlation with pathologic tumor volume. Radiology. 2009; 252(2):449-57. PMC: 2753786. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2523081423. View

16.

Rueckert D, Sonoda L, Hayes C, Hill D, Leach M, Hawkes D . Nonrigid registration using free-form deformations: application to breast MR images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1999; 18(8):712-21. DOI: 10.1109/42.796284. View

17.

Viswanath S, Bloch B, Genega E, Rofsky N, Lenkinski R, Chappelow J . A comprehensive segmentation, registration, and cancer detection scheme on 3 Tesla in vivo prostate DCE-MRI. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv. 2008; 11(Pt 1):662-9. PMC: 2810962. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-85988-8_79. View

18.

Futterer J, Heijmink S, Scheenen T, Veltman J, Huisman H, Vos P . Prostate cancer localization with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology. 2006; 241(2):449-58. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2412051866. View

19.

Heijmink S, Scheenen T, van Lin E, Visser A, Kiemeney L, Witjes J . Changes in prostate shape and volume and their implications for radiotherapy after introduction of endorectal balloon as determined by MRI at 3T. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008; 73(5):1446-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.06.1491. View

20.

Zijdenbos A, Dawant B, Margolin R, Palmer A . Morphometric analysis of white matter lesions in MR images: method and validation. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1994; 13(4):716-24. DOI: 10.1109/42.363096. View