Comparison of manual vs. automated multimodality (CT-MRI) image registration for brain tumors

被引:25
|
作者
Sarkar, A [1 ]
Santiago, RJ [1 ]
Smith, R [1 ]
Kassaee, A [1 ]
机构
[1] Hosp Univ Penn, Dept Radiat Oncol, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
关键词
multimodality registration; chamfer matching; mutual information; CT; MRI;
D O I
10.1016/j.meddos.2004.10.004
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Computed tomgoraphy-magnetic resonance imaging (CT-MRI) registrations are routinely used for target-volume delineation of brain tumors. We clinically use 2 software packages based on manual operation and 1 automated package with 2 different algorithms: chamfer matching using bony structures, and mutual information using intensity patterns. In all registration algorithms, a minimum of 3 pairs of identical anatomical and preferably noncoplanar landmarks is used on each of the 2 image sets. In manual registration, the program registers these points and links the image sets using a 3-dimensional (3D) transformation. In automated registration, the 3 landmarks are used as an initial starting point and further processing is done to complete the registration. Using our registration packages, registration of CT and MRI was performed on 10 patients. We scored the results of each registration set based on the amount of time spent, the accuracy reported by the software, and a final evaluation. We evaluated each software program by measuring the residual error between "matched" points on the right and left globes and the posterior fossa for fused image slices. In general, manual registration showed higher misalignment between corresponding points compared to automated registration using intensity matching. This error had no directional dependence and was, most of the time, larger for a larger structure in both registration techniques. Automated algorithm based on intensity matching also gave the best results in terms of registration accuracy, irrespective of whether or not the initial landmarks were chosen carefully, when compared to that done using bone matching algorithm. Intensity-matching algorithm required the least amount of user-time and provided better accuracy. (C) 2005 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists.
引用
收藏
页码:20 / 24
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparison of manual vs. automated multimodality (CT-MRI) image fusion for brain tumors
    Sarkar, A
    Santiago, R
    Smith, R
    Kassaee, A
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2003, 30 (06) : 1505 - 1505
  • [2] Validation of the CT-MRI image registration with a dedicated phantom
    Spampinato, Sofia
    Gueli, Anna Maria
    Raffaele, Luigi
    Stancampiano, Concetta
    Ettorre, Giovanni Carlo
    [J]. RADIOLOGIA MEDICA, 2014, 119 (12): : 942 - 950
  • [3] Intrapatient Multimodal Medical Image Registration of Brain CT-MRI 3D-an approach based on metaheuristics
    Cespedes, Pedro P.
    Gimenez, Gabriel A.
    Lopez, Lorenzo
    Vazquez, Jose L.
    Legal-Ayala, Horacio
    Pinto-Roa, Diego
    [J]. 14TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON MEDICAL INFORMATION PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS, 2018, 10975
  • [4] Comparison of manual registration and automated registration in Matlab of AOSLO image sequences
    Bartsch, Dirk-Uwe G.
    Ofstad, Tyler
    Zawaydeh, Qais
    Jhingan, Mahima
    Freeman, William R.
    [J]. INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 2020, 61 (07)
  • [5] Direct quantitative in vivo comparison of calcified atherosclerotic plaque on vascular MRI and CT by multimodality image registration
    Dey, D
    Slomka, P
    Chien, D
    Fieno, D
    Abidov, A
    Saouaf, R
    Thomson, L
    Friedman, JD
    Berman, DS
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2006, 23 (03) : 345 - 354
  • [6] 3-Dimensional Neurosurgical Planning Using Multilevel CT-MRI Image Registration and Fusion
    Siddeshappa, Nandish
    Chhaya, Malaaika Mihir
    Prabhu, Gopalakrishna K.
    Kadavigere, Rajagopal, V
    [J]. TURKISH NEUROSURGERY, 2023, 33 (05) : 745 - 753
  • [7] Reference Database Driven Statistical Analysis of Automated Frameless CT-MRI Registration Developed for Radiosurgical Investigations
    Opposits, G.
    Kis, S. A.
    Spisak, T.
    Berenyi, E.
    Szucs, B.
    Bognar, L.
    Dobai, J. G.
    Takacs, E.
    Gulyas, L.
    Emri, M.
    [J]. 2012 IEEE NUCLEAR SCIENCE SYMPOSIUM AND MEDICAL IMAGING CONFERENCE RECORD (NSS/MIC), 2012, : 2780 - 2782
  • [8] Comparison of Single MRI vs. Multiparametric MRI in GBM Image Data
    Zhang, Y.
    Chen, D. T.
    Grass, G. D.
    Yu, H. H. M.
    Zhang, G. G.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2021, 111 (03): : E257 - E257
  • [9] CT vs. VolumeScope: image quality and dose comparison
    Vasiliev, VN
    Gamaliy, AF
    Zaytsev, MY
    Zaytseva, KV
    [J]. X-Ray and Neutron Capillary Optics II, 2005, 5943 : 248 - 254
  • [10] An automated elastic image registration method for CT and MR brain images
    Law, W
    Feng, DD
    Wong, KP
    Wang, XY
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2004 INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON INTELLIGENT MULTIMEDIA, VIDEO AND SPEECH PROCESSING, 2004, : 350 - 353