Fully automated deformable registration of breast DCE-MRI and PET/CT

Physics in Medicine and Biology

Volumn 58, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 1221-1233

  Dmitriev, I D ^a   Loo, C E ^b   Vogel, W V ^b   Pengel, K E ^b   Gilhuijs, K G A ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^b ANTONI VAN LEEUWENHOEK HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL PROPERTIES; BIOPSY SAMPLES; BREAST DCE MRIS; BREAST IMAGING; BREAST TUMOR; DCE-MRI; DEFORMABLE REGISTRATION; FULLY AUTOMATED; LOCAL MINIMUMS; MULTI-RESOLUTION APPROACH; PATIENT SETUP; SPEED UP; T1-WEIGHTED; TISSUE BIOPSIES;

CHEMOTHERAPY; DEFORMATION; PATIENT TREATMENT; TISSUE;

MEDICAL IMAGING;

ADJUVANT THERAPY; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; BREAST; BREAST TUMOR; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE SUBTRACTION; INFORMATION PROCESSING; METHODOLOGY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATHOLOGY; PROGNOSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICAL MODEL;

AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING; AUTOMATION; BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NEOADJUVANT THERAPY; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY AND COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; PROGNOSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SUBTRACTION TECHNIQUE;

MLCS; MLOWN;

EID: 84873657778     PISSN: 00319155     EISSN: 13616560     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/58/4/1221     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Aisen A M, Martel W, Braunstein E M, McMillin K I, Phillips W A and Kling T F 1986 MRI and CT evaluation of primary bone and soft-tissue tumors Am. J. Roentgenol. 146 749-56 (available at http://www.ajronline.org/content/146/4/749. long)
2. American Cancer Society 2010 Cancer facts and figures, http://www.cancer.org
3. Avril N, Rosé C A, Schelling M, Dose J, Kuhn W, Bense S, Weber W, Ziegler S, Graeff H and Schwaiger M 2000 Breast imaging with positron emission tomography and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose: use and limitations J. Clin. Oncol. 18 3495-502 (available at http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/18/20/3495. long)
4. Barentsz J O, Jager G J, Witjes J A and Ruijs J H J 1996 Primary staging of urinary bladder carcinoma: the role of MRI and a comparison with CT Eur. Radiol. 6 129-33
5. Bombardieri E and Crippa F 2001 PET imaging in breast cancer Q. J. Nucl. Med. 45 245-56 (available at http://www.minervamedica.it/en/journals/nuclear- med-molecular-imaging/article.php?cod=R39Y2001N03A0245)
6. Chen X, Moore M O, Lehman C D, Mankoff D A, Lawton T J, Peacock S, Schubert E K and Livingston R B 2004 Combined use of MRI and PET to monitor response and assess residual disease for locally advanced breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy Acad. Radiol. 11 1115-24
7. DeMartini W, Lehman C and Partridge S 2008 Breast MRI for cancer detection and characterization: a review of evidence-based clinical applications Acad. Radiol. 15 408-16
8. Eliat P A et al 2004 Magnetic resonance imaging contrast-enhanced relaxometry of breast tumors: an MRI multicenter investigation concerning 100 patients Magn. Reson. Imaging 22 475-81
9. Gibbs P, Liney G P, Lowry M, Kneeshaw P J and Turnbull L W 2004 Differentiation of benign and malignant sub-1 cm breast lesions using dynamic contrast enhanced MRI Breast 13 115-21
10. Gilhuijs K G A, Giger M L and Bick U 1998 Computerized analysis of breast lesions in three dimensions using dynamic magnetic-resonance imaging Med. Phys. 25 1647-54
11. Gonzalez R C and Woods R E 2007 Digital Image Processing 3rd edn (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall)
12. Hussain Z, Roberts N, Whitehouse G H, García-Fiñana M and Percy D 1999 Estimation of breast volume and its variation during the menstrual cycle using MRI and stereology Br. J. Radiol. 72 236-45 (available at http://bjr.birjournals.org/content/72/855/236.reprint)
13. Hylton N 2005 Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: opportunities to improve breast cancer management J. Clin. Oncol. 23 1678-84
14. Jatoi I and Proschan M A 2005 Randomized trials of breast-conserving therapy versus mastectomy for primary breast cancer: a pooled analysis of updated results Am. J. Clin. Oncol. 28 289-94
15. Kaida H et al 2008 Improved breast cancer detection of prone breast fluorodeoxyglucose-PET in 118 patients Nucl. Med. Commun. 29 885-93
16. Kent D L, Haynor D R, Longstreth W T Jr and Larson E B 1994 The clinical efficacy of magnetic resonance imaging in neuroimaging Ann. Intern. Med. 120 856-71 (available at http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=707397)
17. Kinkel K and Hylton N M 2001 Challenges to interpretation of breast MRI J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 13 821-9
18. Klein Zeggelink W F A, Deurloo E E, Muller S H, Schultze Kool L J and Gilhuijs K G A 2002 Reproducibility of mammary gland structure during repeat setups in a supine position Med. Phys. 29 2062-9
19. Krak N C, Boellaard R, Hoekstra O S, Twisk J W R, Hoekstra C J and Lammertsma A A 2005 Effects of ROI definition and reconstruction method on quantitative outcome and applicability in a response monitoring trial Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 32 294-301
20. Lehman C D et al 2007 Cancer yield of mammography, MR, and US in high-risk women: prospective multi-institution breast cancer screening study Radiology 244 381-8
21. Mattes D, Haynor D R, Vesselle H, Lewellyn T K and Eubank W 2001 Nonrigid multimodality image registration Proc. SPIE 4322 1609-20
22. Mattes D, Haynor D R, Vesselle H, Lewellen T K and Eubank W 2003 PET-CT image registration in the chest using free-form deformations IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 22 120-8
23. Moy L, Noz M E, Maguire G Q Jr, Melsaether A, Deans A E, Murphy-Walcott A D and Ponzo F 2010 Role of fusion of prone FDG-PET and magnetic resonance imaging of the breasts in the evaluation of breast cancer Breast J. 16 369-76
24. Moy L, Ponzo F, Noz M E, Maguire G Q Jr, Murphy-Walcott A D, Deans A E, Kitazono M T, Travascio L and Kramer E L 2007 Improving specificity of breast MRI using prone PET and fused MRI and PET 3D volume datasets J. Nucl. Med. 48 528-37
25. Otsu N 1979 A threshold selection method from gray level histograms IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 9 62-6
26. Padhani A R 2002 Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in clinical oncology: current status and future directions J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 16 407-22
27. Palmedo H, Hensel J, Reinhardt M, Von Mallek D, Matthies A and Biersack H J 2002 Breast cancer imaging with PET and SPECT agents: an in vivo comparison Nucl. Med. Biol. 29 809-15
28. Rakesh K, Anil C, Hongming Z, Prem C, Mitchell S and Abass A 2006 Clinicopathologic factors associated with false negative FDG-PET in primary breast cancer Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 98 267-74
29. Rath G, Haresh K, Julka P, Prabhakar R, Joshi R and Ganesh T 2007 Comparison of computed tomography and magnetic resonance based target volume in brain tumors J. Cancer Res. Therapeutics 3 121-3
30. Riedl C C, Ponhold L, Flöry D, Weber M, Kroiss R, Wagner T, Fuchsjäger M and Helbich T H 2007 Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast improves detection of invasive cancer, preinvasive cancer, and premalignant lesions during surveillance of women at high risk for breast cancer Clin. Cancer Res. 13 6144-52
31. Rohlfing T, Maurer C R Jr, Bluemke D A and Jacobs M A 2003 Volume-preserving nonrigid registration of MR breast images using free-form deformation with an incompressibility constraint IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 22 730-41
32. Rueckert D, Sonoda L I, Hayes C, Hill D L G, Leach M O and Hawkes D J 1999 Nonrigid registration using free-form deformations: application to breast MR images IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 18 712-21
33. Scheidhauer K, Walter C and Seemann M D 2004 FDG-PET and other imaging modalities in the primary diagnosis of suspicious breast lesions Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 31 S70-9
34. Somer E J, Benatar N A, O'Doherty M J, Smith M A and Marsden P K 2007 Use of the CT component of PET-CT to improve PET-MR registration: demonstration in soft-tissue sarcoma Phys. Med. Biol. 52 6991-7006
35. Tanner C, Degenhard A, Schnabel J A, Smith Castellano A, Hayes C, Sonoda L I, Leach M O, Hose D R, Hill D L G and Hawkes D J 2001 A method for the comparison of biomechanical breast models IEEE Workshop on Mathematical Methods in Biomedical Image Analysis 2001 (MMBIA 2001) pp 11-8
36. Tuncbilek N, Unlu E, Karakas H M, Cakir B and Ozyilmaz F 2003 Evaluation of tumor angiogenesis with contrast-enhanced dynamic magnetic resonance mammography Breast J. 9 403-8
37. Unlu M Z, Krol A, Magri A, Mandel J A, Lee W, Baum K G, Lipson E D, Coman I L and Feiglin D H 2010 Computerized method for nonrigid MR-to-PET breast-image registration Comput. Biol. Med. 40 37-53
38. Walter C, Scheidhauer K, Scharl A, Goering U-J, Theissen P, Kugel H, Krahe T and Pietrzyk U 2003 Clinical and diagnostic value of preoperative MR mammography and FDG-PET in suspicious breast lesions Eur. Radiol. 13 1651-6
39. Yarbro J W, Page D L, Fielding L P, Partridge E E and Murphy G P 1999 American joint committee on cancer prognostic factors consensus conference Cancer 86 2436-46
40. Yutani K, Tatsumi M, Uehara T and Nishimura T 1999 Effect of patients' being prone during FDG PET for the diagnosis of breast cancer Am. J. Roentgenol. 173 1337-9 (available at http://www.ajronline.org/content/173/5/1337.long)