Quantitative Evaluation of the Influence of Multiple MRI Sequences and of Pathological Tissues on the Registration of Longitudinal Data Acquired During Brain Tumor Treatment

Overview

Journal Front Neuroimaging

Date 2023 Aug 9

PMID 37555157

Authors

Luca Canalini

Jan Klein

Diana Waldmannstetter

Florian Kofler

Stefano Cerri

Alessa Hering

Stefan Heldmann

Sarah Schlaeger

Bjoern H Menze

Benedikt Wiestler

Jan Kirschke

Horst K Hahn

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Registration methods facilitate the comparison of multiparametric magnetic resonance images acquired at different stages of brain tumor treatments. Image-based registration solutions are influenced by the sequences chosen to compute the distance measure, and the lack of image correspondences due to the resection cavities and pathological tissues. Nonetheless, an evaluation of the impact of these input parameters on the registration of longitudinal data is still missing. This work evaluates the influence of multiple sequences, namely T1-weighted (T1), T2-weighted (T2), contrast enhanced T1-weighted (T1-CE), and T2 Fluid Attenuated Inversion Recovery (FLAIR), and the exclusion of the pathological tissues on the non-rigid registration of pre- and post-operative images. We here investigate two types of registration methods, an iterative approach and a convolutional neural network solution based on a 3D U-Net. We employ two test sets to compute the mean target registration error (mTRE) based on corresponding landmarks. In the first set, markers are positioned exclusively in the surroundings of the pathology. The methods employing T1-CE achieves the lowest mTREs, with a improvement up to 0.8 mm for the iterative solution. The results are higher than the baseline when using the FLAIR sequence. When excluding the pathology, lower mTREs are observable for most of the methods. In the second test set, corresponding landmarks are located in the entire brain volumes. Both solutions employing T1-CE obtain the lowest mTREs, with a decrease up to 1.16 mm for the iterative method, whereas the results worsen using the FLAIR. When excluding the pathology, an improvement is observable for the CNN method using T1-CE. Both approaches utilizing the T1-CE sequence obtain the best mTREs, whereas the FLAIR is the least informative to guide the registration process. Besides, the exclusion of pathology from the distance measure computation improves the registration of the brain tissues surrounding the tumor. Thus, this work provides the first numerical evaluation of the influence of these parameters on the registration of longitudinal magnetic resonance images, and it can be helpful for developing future algorithms.

References

Haber E, Modersitzki J . Intensity gradient based registration and fusion of multi-modal images. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv. 2007; 9(Pt 2):726-33. DOI: 10.1007/11866763_89. View

Ellingson B, Bendszus M, Boxerman J, Barboriak D, Erickson B, Smits M . Consensus recommendations for a standardized Brain Tumor Imaging Protocol in clinical trials. Neuro Oncol. 2015; 17(9):1188-98. PMC: 4588759. DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/nov095. View

Chitphakdithai N, Chiang V, Duncan J . Non-rigid registration of longitudinal brain tumor treatment MRI. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2012; 2011:4893-6. PMC: 3753806. DOI: 10.1109/IEMBS.2011.6091212. View

van der Hoorn A, Yan J, Larkin T, Boonzaier N, Matys T, Price S . Validation of a semi-automatic co-registration of MRI scans in patients with brain tumors during treatment follow-up. NMR Biomed. 2016; 29(7):882-9. DOI: 10.1002/nbm.3538. View

Paprottka K, Kleiner S, Preibisch C, Kofler F, Schmidt-Graf F, Delbridge C . Fully automated analysis combining [F]-FET-PET and multiparametric MRI including DSC perfusion and APTw imaging: a promising tool for objective evaluation of glioma progression. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021; 48(13):4445-4455. PMC: 8566389. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-021-05427-8. View

Bakas S, Akbari H, Sotiras A, Bilello M, Rozycki M, Kirby J . Advancing The Cancer Genome Atlas glioma MRI collections with expert segmentation labels and radiomic features. Sci Data. 2017; 4:170117. PMC: 5685212. DOI: 10.1038/sdata.2017.117. View

Han X, Bakas S, Kwitt R, Aylward S, Akbari H, Bilello M . Patient-Specific Registration of Pre-operative and Post-recurrence Brain Tumor MRI Scans. Brainlesion. 2019; 11383:105-114. PMC: 6599177. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-11723-8_10. View

Avants B, Epstein C, Grossman M, Gee J . Symmetric diffeomorphic image registration with cross-correlation: evaluating automated labeling of elderly and neurodegenerative brain. Med Image Anal. 2007; 12(1):26-41. PMC: 2276735. DOI: 10.1016/j.media.2007.06.004. View

Kwon D, Niethammer M, Akbari H, Bilello M, Davatzikos C, Pohl K . PORTR: Pre-operative and post-recurrence brain tumor registration. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2014; 33(3):651-67. PMC: 4134002. DOI: 10.1109/TMI.2013.2293478. View

10.

Canalini L, Klein J, Miller D, Kikinis R . Segmentation-based registration of ultrasound volumes for glioma resection in image-guided neurosurgery. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2019; 14(10):1697-1713. PMC: 6797669. DOI: 10.1007/s11548-019-02045-6. View

11.

Klein A, Andersson J, Ardekani B, Ashburner J, Avants B, Chiang M . Evaluation of 14 nonlinear deformation algorithms applied to human brain MRI registration. Neuroimage. 2009; 46(3):786-802. PMC: 2747506. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.12.037. View

12.

Chitphakdithai N, Duncan J . PAIRWISE REGISTRATION OF IMAGES WITH MISSING CORRESPONDENCES DUE TO RESECTION. Proc IEEE Int Symp Biomed Imaging. 2011; 2010:1025-1028. PMC: 3146293. DOI: 10.1109/ISBI.2010.5490164. View

13.

Kofler F, Berger C, Waldmannstetter D, Lipkova J, Ezhov I, Tetteh G . BraTS Toolkit: Translating BraTS Brain Tumor Segmentation Algorithms Into Clinical and Scientific Practice. Front Neurosci. 2020; 14:125. PMC: 7201293. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00125. View

14.

Verma R, Zacharaki E, Ou Y, Cai H, Chawla S, Lee S . Multiparametric tissue characterization of brain neoplasms and their recurrence using pattern classification of MR images. Acad Radiol. 2008; 15(8):966-77. PMC: 2596598. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2008.01.029. View

15.

Hering A, Kuckertz S, Heldmann S, Heinrich M . Memory-efficient 2.5D convolutional transformer networks for multi-modal deformable registration with weak label supervision applied to whole-heart CT and MRI scans. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2019; 14(11):1901-1912. DOI: 10.1007/s11548-019-02068-z. View

16.

Hering A, Hager S, Moltz J, Lessmann N, Heldmann S, van Ginneken B . CNN-based lung CT registration with multiple anatomical constraints. Med Image Anal. 2021; 72:102139. PMC: 10369673. DOI: 10.1016/j.media.2021.102139. View

17.

Estienne T, Lerousseau M, Vakalopoulou M, Andres E, Battistella E, Carre A . Deep Learning-Based Concurrent Brain Registration and Tumor Segmentation. Front Comput Neurosci. 2020; 14:17. PMC: 7100603. DOI: 10.3389/fncom.2020.00017. View

18.

Ou Y, Akbari H, Bilello M, Da X, Davatzikos C . Comparative evaluation of registration algorithms in different brain databases with varying difficulty: results and insights. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2014; 33(10):2039-65. PMC: 4371548. DOI: 10.1109/TMI.2014.2330355. View

19.

Menze B, Jakab A, Bauer S, Kalpathy-Cramer J, Farahani K, Kirby J . The Multimodal Brain Tumor Image Segmentation Benchmark (BRATS). IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2014; 34(10):1993-2024. PMC: 4833122. DOI: 10.1109/TMI.2014.2377694. View

20.

Bette S, Gempt J, Huber T, Delbridge C, Meyer B, Zimmer C . FLAIR signal increase of the fluid within the resection cavity after glioma surgery: generally valid as early recurrence marker?. J Neurosurg. 2016; 127(2):417-425. DOI: 10.3171/2016.8.JNS16752. View