Comparison of Elastic and Rigid Registration during Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion-Guided Prostate Biopsy: A Multi-Operator Phantom Study
Journal of Urology
image-guided biopsy; magnetic resonance imaging; multimodal imaging; prostatic neoplasms; ultrasonography
© 2018 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Purpose: The relative value of rigid or elastic registration during magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy has been poorly studied. We compared registration errors (the distance between a region of interest and fiducial markers) between rigid and elastic registration during fusion guided prostate biopsy using a prostate phantom model. Materials and Methods: Four gold fiducial markers visible on magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound were placed throughout 1 phantom prostate model. The phantom underwent magnetic resonance imaging and the fiducial markers were labeled as regions of interest. An experienced user and a novice user of fusion guided prostate biopsy targeted regions of interest and then the corresponding fiducial markers on ultrasound after rigid and then elastic registration. Registration errors were compared. Results: A total of 224 registration error measurements were recorded. Overall elastic registration did not provide significantly improved registration error over rigid registration (mean ± SD 4.87 ± 3.50 vs 4.11 ± 2.09 mm, p = 0.05). However, lesions near the edge of the phantom showed increased registration errors when using elastic registration (5.70 ± 3.43 vs 3.23 ± 1.68 mm, p = 0.03). Compared to the novice user the experienced user reported decreased registration error with rigid registration (3.25 ± 1.49 vs 4.98 ± 2.10 mm, p <0.01) and elastic registration (3.94 ± 2.61 vs 6.07 ± 4.16 mm, p <0.01). Conclusions: We found no difference in registration errors between rigid and elastic registration overall but rigid registration decreased the registration error of targets near the prostate edge. Additionally, operator experience reduced registration errors regardless of the registration method. Therefore, elastic registration algorithms cannot serve as a replacement for attention to detail during the registration process and anatomical landmarks indicating accurate registration when beginning the procedure and before targeting each region of interest.
Hale, G., Czarniecki, M., Cheng, A., Bloom, J., Seifabadi, R., Gold, S., Rayn, K., Sabarwal, V., Mehralivand, S., Choyke, P., Turkbey, B., Wood, B., & Pinto, P. (2018). Comparison of Elastic and Rigid Registration during Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion-Guided Prostate Biopsy: A Multi-Operator Phantom Study. Journal of Urology, 200 (5). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.06.028