Two‐dimensional ultrasound‐computed tomography image registration for monitoring percutaneous hepatic intervention

Abstract

Purpose Deformable registration of ultrasound (US) and contrast enhanced computed tomography (CECT) images are essential for quantitative comparison of ablation boundaries and dimensions determined using these modalities. This comparison is essential as stiffness‐based imaging using US has become popular and offers a nonionizing and cost‐effective imaging modality for monitoring minimally invasive microwave ablation procedures. A sensible manual registration method is presented that performs the required CT‐US image registration. Methods The two‐dimensional (2D) virtual CT image plane that corresponds to the clinical US B‐mode was obtained by “virtually slicing” the 3D CT volume along the plane containing non‐anatomical landmarks, namely points along the microwave ablation antenna. The initial slice plane was generated using the vector acquired by rotating the normal vector of the transverse (i.e., xz) plane along the angle subtended by the antenna. This plane was then further rotated along the ablation antenna and shifted along with the direction of normal vector to obtain similar anatomical structures, such as the liver surface and vasculature that is visualized on both the CT virtual slice and US B‐mode images on 20 patients. Finally, an affine transformation was estimated using anatomic and non‐anatomic landmarks to account for distortion between the colocated CT virtual slice and US B‐mode image resulting in a final registered CT virtual slice. Registration accuracy was measured by estimating the Euclidean distance between corresponding registered points on CT and US B‐mode images. Results Mean and SD of the affine transformed registration error was 1.85 ± 2.14 (mm), computed from 20 coregistered data sets. Conclusions Our results demonstrate the ability to obtain 2D virtual CT slices that are registered to clinical US B‐mode images. The use of both anatomical and non‐anatomical landmarks result in accurate registration useful for validating ablative margins and comparison to electrode displacement elastography based images.

Can Liver Ultrasound Elastography Predict the Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Recurrence After Radiofrequency Ablation? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…The electronic search identified 207 records after duplicates were removed, of which 29 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility [17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45]. Of these, 4 were excluded because of different target conditions (i. e., lesions other than HCC or treatments other than RFA) [25,36,37,42], 2 evaluated LS by magnetic resonance elastography [18,21], and 14 for other reasons (▶ Fig. 1) [17,19,20,22,24,26,28,29,30,35,39,40,41,…”

Retrolaminar Demyelination of Structurally Intact Axons in Nonhuman Primate Experimental Glaucoma

“…3 D–G), as previously reported by Chaudhary et al 46 Using a line connecting the two BMO points as a reference, the location of the center of each vessel was projected to this BMO reference line. This line, along with its vessel projection points, was then overlaid on a fundus image and affine transformed, 47 , 48 until the position of best fit for both the BMO points (to the clinical disc margin) and central vessel points (to retinal and optic disc vessels). The orientation of each individual section was then approximated relative to the cardinal sections by using the section number and fine-tuned using the vessel crossings and BMO points as outlined above.…”

Deep Cascade Networks for Single 2D US Slice to 3D CT/MRI Image Registration

“…Once the patient has recovered their breath, the registration becomes invalid due to the liver shift secondary to the respiration. In recent works, Spinczyk et al 3 and Pohlman et al 4 developed similar needle navigation systems, but for general purposes. As discussed in these works, the most important task in their navigation system is multi-modal image registration.…”