Person:

Hata, Nobuhiko

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.

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.