Image Registration of Pre-Procedural MRI and Intra-Procedural CT Images to Aid CT-Guided Percutaneous Cryoablation of Renal Tumors

DSpace/Manakin Repository

Image Registration of Pre-Procedural MRI and Intra-Procedural CT Images to Aid CT-Guided Percutaneous Cryoablation of Renal Tumors

Citable link to this page

 

 
Title: Image Registration of Pre-Procedural MRI and Intra-Procedural CT Images to Aid CT-Guided Percutaneous Cryoablation of Renal Tumors
Author: Oguro, Sota; Tuncali, Kemal; Elhawary, Haytham; Morrison, Paul T; Hata, Nobuhiko; Silverman, Stuart George

Note: Order does not necessarily reflect citation order of authors.

Citation: Oguro, Sota, Kemal Tuncali, Haytham Elhawary, Paul R. Morrison, Nobuhiko Hata, and Stuart G. Silverman. 2010. “Image Registration of Pre-Procedural MRI and Intra-Procedural CT Images to Aid CT-Guided Percutaneous Cryoablation of Renal Tumors.” International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery 6 (1) (May 25): 111–117. doi:10.1007/s11548-010-0485-9.
Full Text & Related Files:
Abstract: Purpose: To determine whether a non-rigid registration (NRR) technique was more accurate than a rigid registration (RR) technique when fusing pre-procedural contrast-enhanced MR images to unenhanced CT images during CT-guided percutaneous cryoablation of renal tumors. Methods: Both RR and NRR were applied retrospectively to 11 CT-guided percutaneous cryoablation procedures performed to treat renal tumors (mean diameter; 23 mm). Pre-procedural contrast-enhanced MR images of the upper abdomen were registered to unenhanced intra-procedural CT images obtained just prior to the ablation. RRs were performed manually, and NRRs were performed using an intensity-based approach with affine and Basis-Spline techniques used for modeling displacement. Registration accuracy for each technique was assessed using the 95% Hausdorff distance (HD), Fiducial Registration Error (FRE) and the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC). Statistical differences were analyzed using a two-sided Student’s t-test. Time for each registration technique was recorded. Results: Mean 95% HD (1.7 mm), FRE (1.7 mm) and DSC (0.96) using the NRR technique were significantly better than mean 95% HD (6.4 mm), FRE (5.0 mm) and DSC (0.88) using the RR technique (P < 0.05 for each analysis). Mean registration times of NRR and RR techniques were 15.2 and 5.7 min, respectively. Conclusions: The non-rigid registration technique was more accurate than the rigid registration technique when fusing pre-procedural MR images to intra-procedural unenhanced CT images. The non-rigid registration technique can be used to improve visualization of renal tumors during CT-guided cryoablation procedures.
Published Version: doi:10.1007/s11548-010-0485-9
Other Sources: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3050046/
Terms of Use: This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAA
Citable link to this page: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:33953715
Downloads of this work:

Show full Dublin Core record

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

 
 

Search DASH


Advanced Search
 
 

Submitters