Person:

Hata, Nobuhiko

Rationale and Objectives: Accuracy and speed are essential for the intraprocedural nonrigid MR-to-CT image registration in the assessment of tumor margins during CT-guided liver tumor ablations. While both accuracy and speed can be improved by limiting the registration to a region of interest (ROI), manual contouring of the ROI prolongs the registration process substantially. To achieve accurate and fast registration without the use of an ROI, we combined a nonrigid registration technique based on volume subdivision with hardware acceleration using a graphical processing unit (GPU). We compared the registration accuracy and processing time of GPU-accelerated volume subdivision-based nonrigid registration technique to the conventional nonrigid B-spline registration technique. Materials and Methods: Fourteen image data sets of preprocedural MR and intraprocedural CT images for percutaneous CT-guided liver tumor ablations were obtained. Each set of images was registered using the GPU-accelerated volume subdivision technique and the B-spline technique. Manual contouring of ROI was used only for the B-spline technique. Registration accuracies (Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) and 95% Hausdorff Distance (HD)), and total processing time including contouring of ROIs and computation were compared using a paired Student’s t-test. Results: Accuracy of the GPU-accelerated registrations and B-spline registrations, respectively were 88.3 ± 3.7% vs 89.3 ± 4.9% (p = 0.41) for DSC and 13.1 ± 5.2 mm vs 11.4 ± 6.3 mm (p = 0.15) for HD. Total processing time of the GPU-accelerated registration and B-spline registration techniques was 88 ± 14 s vs 557 ± 116 s (p < 0.000000002), respectively; there was no significant difference in computation time despite the difference in the complexity of the algorithms (p = 0.71). Conclusion: The GPU-accelerated volume subdivision technique was as accurate as the B-spline technique and required significantly less processing time. The GPU-accelerated volume subdivision technique may enable the implementation of nonrigid registration into routine clinical practice.

Purpose: Contrast-enhanced MR images are widely used to confirm the adequacy of ablation margin after liver ablation for early prediction of local recurrence. However, quantitative assessment of the ablation margin by comparing pre- and post-procedural images remains challenging. We developed and tested a novel method for three-dimensional quantitative assessment of ablation margin based on non-rigid image registration and 3D distance map. Methods: Our method was tested with pre- and post-procedural MR images acquired in 21 patients who underwent image-guided percutaneous liver ablation. The two images were co-registered using non-rigid intensity-based registration. After the tumor and ablation volumes were segmented, target volume coverage, percent of tumor coverage, and Dice Similarity Coefficient were calculated as metrics representing overall adequacy of ablation. In addition, 3D distance map around the tumor was computed and superimposed on the ablation volume to identify the area with insufficient margins. For patients with local recurrences, the follow-up images were registered to the post-procedural image. Three-D minimum distance between the recurrence and the areas with insufficient margins were quantified. Results: The percent tumor coverage for all non-recurrent cases was 100%. Five cases had tumor recurrences, and the 3D distance map revealed insufficient tumor coverage or a 0-millimeter margin. It also showed that two recurrences were remote to the insufficient margin. Conclusions: Non-rigid registration and 3D distance map allows us to quantitatively evaluate the adequacy of the ablation margin after percutaneous liver ablation. The method may be useful to predict local recurrences immediately following ablation procedure.

Rationale and Objectives: To develop non-rigid image registration between pre-procedure contrast enhanced MR images and intra-procedure unenhanced CT images, to enhance tumor visualization and localization during CT-guided liver tumor cryoablation procedures. Materials and Methods: After IRB approval, a non-rigid registration (NRR) technique was evaluated with different pre-processing steps and algorithm parameters and compared to a standard rigid registration (RR) approach. The Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), Target Registration Error (TRE), 95% Hausdorff distance (HD) and total registration time (minutes) were compared using a two-sided Student’s t-test. The entire registration method was then applied during five CT-guided liver cryoablation cases with the intra-procedural CT data transmitted directly from the CT scanner, with both accuracy and registration time evaluated. Results: Selected optimal parameters for registration were section thickness of 5mm, cropping the field of view to 66% of its original size, manual segmentation of the liver, B-spline control grid of 5×5×5 and spatial sampling of 50,000 pixels. Mean 95% HD of 3.3mm (2.5x improvement compared to RR, p<0.05); mean DSC metric of 0.97 (13% increase); and mean TRE of 4.1mm (2.7x reduction) were measured. During the cryoablation procedure registration between the pre-procedure MR and the planning intra-procedure CT took a mean time of 10.6 minutes, the MR to targeting CT image took 4 minutes and MR to monitoring CT took 4.3 minutes. Mean registration accuracy was under 3.4mm. Conclusion: Non-rigid registration allowed improved visualization of the tumor during interventional planning, targeting and evaluation of tumor coverage by the ice ball. Future work is focused on reducing segmentation time to make the method more clinically acceptable.