Comparing two approaches to rigid registration of three-dimensional ultrasound and magnetic resonance images for neurosurgery

  • Laurence Mercier
  • Vladimir Fonov
  • Claire Haegelen
  • Rolando F. Del Maestro
  • Kevin Petrecca
  • D. Louis Collins
Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Purpose

We present a new technique for registering magnetic resonance (MR) and ultrasound images in the context of neurosurgery. It involves generating a pseudo-ultrasound (pseudo-US) from a segmented MR image and uses cross-correlation as the cost function to register the pseudo-US to the real ultrasound data. The algorithm’s performance is compared with that of a state-of-the-art technique that uses a median-filtered MR image to register to a Gaussian-blurred ultrasound using a normalized mutual information (NMI) objective function.

Methods

The two methods were tested on data from 15 patients with brain tumor, including low-and high-grade gliomas, in both first operations and reoperations. Two metrics were used to evaluate registration accuracy: (1) the mean distance between corresponding points, identified on both MR and ultrasound images by two experts, and (2) ratings based on visual comparison by one neurosurgeon.

Results

The mean residual distance of the pseudo-US technique, 2.97 mm, is significantly more accurate (p = .0011) than that of the NMI approach, 4.86 mm. The visual assessment shows that only 4 of the 15 cases had a satisfactory initial alignment based on homologous skin-point registration. There is a significant correlation between the quantitative distance measures and the qualitative ratings (rho = 0.785).

Conclusion

The results show that the pseudo-US rigid registration technique robustly improves the MRI–ultrasound alignment when compared with the initial alignment, even when applied to highly distorted brains and a large range of tumor sizes and appearances.

Keywords

Intraoperative ultrasound Brain tumors Multimodal registration Validation 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    van Velthoven V (2003) Intraoperative ultrasound imaging: comparison of pathomorphological findings in US versus CT, MRI and intraoperative findings. Acta Neurochir Suppl 85: 95–99PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Woydt M, Krone A, Becker G, Schmidt K, Roggendorf W, Roosen K (1996) Correlation of intra-operative ultrasound with histopathologic findings after tumour resection in supratentorial gliomas. A method to improve gross total tumour resection. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 138(12): 1391–1398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    LeRoux PD, Winter TC, Berger MS, Mack LA, Wang K, Elliott JP (1994) A comparison between preoperative magnetic resonance and intraoperative ultrasound tumor volumes and margins. J Clin Ultrasound 22(1): 29–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Erdogan N, Tucer B, Mavili E, Menku A, Kurtsoy A (2005) Ultrasound guidance in intracranial tumor resection: correlation with postoperative magnetic resonance findings. Acta Radiol 46(7): 743–749PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tirakotai W, Miller D, Heinze S, Benes L, Bertalanffy H, Sure U (2006) A novel platform for image-guided ultrasound. Neurosurgery 58(4): 710–718 (discussion 710–718)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Unsgaard G, Selbekk T, Brostrup Muller T, Ommedal S, Torp SH, Myhr G, Bang J, Nagelhus Hernes TA (2005) Ability of navigated 3D ultrasound to delineate gliomas and metastases—comparison of image interpretations with histopathology. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 147(12): 1259–1269 (discussion 1269)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Unsgaard G, Ommedal S, Muller T, Gronningsaeter A, Nagelhus Hernes TA (2002) Neuronavigation by intraoperative three-dimensional ultrasound: initial experience during brain tumor resection. Neurosurgery 50(4): 804–812 (discussion 812)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stummer W, Pichlmeier U, Meinel T, Wiestler OD, Zanella F, Reulen HJ (2006) Fluorescence-guided surgery with 5-aminolevulinic acid for resection of malignant glioma: a randomised controlled multicentre phase III trial. Lancet Oncol 7(5): 392–401. doi: S1470-2045(06)70665-9 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hatiboglu MA, Weinberg JS, Suki D, Rao G, Prabhu SS, Shah K, Jackson E, Sawaya R (2009) Impact of intraoperative high-field magnetic resonance imaging guidance on glioma surgery: a prospective volumetric analysis. Neurosurgery 64(6): 1073–1081PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nimsky C, Fujita A, Ganslandt O, Von Keller B, Fahlbusch R (2004) Volumetric assessment of glioma removal by intraoperative high-field magnetic resonance imaging. Neurosurgery 55(2): 358–370 (discussion 370–371)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gerganov VM, Samii A, Akbarian A, Stieglitz L, Samii M, Fahlbusch R (2009) Reliability of intraoperative high-resolution 2D ultrasound as an alternative to high-field strength MR imaging for tumor resection control: a prospective comparative study. J Neurosurg 111(3): 512–519PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Unsgaard G, Gronningsaeter A, Ommedal S, Nagelhus Hernes TA (2002) Brain operations guided by real-time two-dimensional ultrasound: new possibilities as a result of improved image quality. Neurosurgery 51(2): 402–411 (discussion 411–412)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mercier L, Del Maestro RF, Petrecca K, Collins DL (2010) Experience using intraoperative 3D ultrasound in 14 brain tumors cases. In: Canadian Neuro-Oncology Meeting, Niagara-on-the-Lake, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Letteboer MM, Willems PW, Viergever MA, Niessen WJ (2005) Brain shift estimation in image-guided neurosurgery using 3-D ultrasound. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 52(2): 268–276PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lunn KE, Hartov A, Kennedy FE, Miga MI, Roberts DW, Platenik LA, Paulsen KD (2001) 3D ultrasound as sparse data for intraoperative brain deformation model. Proc SPIE 4325: 326–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roberts DW, Miga MI, Kennedy FE, Hartov A, Paulsen KD (1999) Intraoperatively updated neuroimaging using brain modeling and sparse data. Neurosurgery 45: 1199–1207PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mercier L, Lango T, Lindseth F, Collins DL (2005) A review of calibration techniques for freehand 3-D ultrasound systems. Ultrasound Med Biol 31(4): 449–471PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bucholz RD, Yeh DD, Trobaugh JW, McDurmott LL (1997) The correction of stereotactic inaccuracy caused by brain shift using an intraoperative ultrasound device. CVRMed MRCAS’ 97: 459–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Comeau RM, Sadikot AF, Fenster A, Peters TM (2000) Intraoperative ultrasound for guidance and tissue shift correction in image-guided neurosurgery. Med Phys 27(4): 787–800PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Arbel T, Morandi X, Comeau RM, Collins DL (2001) Automatic non-linear MRI-ultrasound registration for the correction of intra-operative brain deformations. In: MICCAI 2001, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Springer, LNCS, pp 913–922Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Arbel T, Morandi X, Comeau RM, Collins DL (2004) Automatic non-linear MRI-ultrasound registration for the correction of intra-operative brain deformations. Comput Aided Surg 9(4): 123–136PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Penney GP, Blackall JM, Hamady MS, Sabharwal T, Adam A, Hawkes DJ (2004) Registration of freehand 3D ultrasound and magnetic resonance liver images. Med Image Anal 8(1): 81–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wein W, Brunke S, Khamene A, Callstrom MR, Navab N (2008) Automatic CT-ultrasound registration for diagnostic imaging and image-guided intervention. Med Image Anal 12(5): 577–585PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wein W, Roper B, Navab N (2005) Automatic registration and fusion of ultrasound with CT for radiotherapy. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 8(Pt 2): 303–311PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wein W, Khamene A, Clevert DA, Kutter O, Navab N (2007) Simulation and fully automatic multimodal registration of medical ultrasound. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 10(Pt 1): 136–143PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    King AP, Ma YL, Yao C, Jansen C, Razavi R, Rhode KS, Penney GP (2009) Image-to-physical registration for image-guided interventions using 3-D ultrasound and an ultrasound imaging model. Inf Process Med Imaging 21: 188–201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    El Ganaoui O, Morandi X, Duchesne S, Jannin P (2008) Preoperative brain shift: study of three surgical cases. Proc SPIE 6918Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Coupe P, Hellier P, Morandi X, Barillot C (2007) A probabilistic objective function for 3d rigid registration of intraoperative Us and preoperative MR brain images. In: Paper presented at the ISBIGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Reinertsen I, Lindseth F, Unsgaard G, Collins DL (2007) Clinical validation of vessel-based registration for correction of brain-shift. Med Image Anal 11(6): 673–684PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Roche A, Pennec X, Malandain G, Ayache N (2001) Rigid registration of 3-D ultrasound with MR images: a new approach combining intensity and gradient information. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 20(10): 1038–1049PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ji S, Wu Z, Hartov A, Roberts DW, Paulsen KD (2008) Mutual-information-based image to patient re-registration using intraoperative ultrasound in image-guided neurosurgery. Med Phys 35(10): 4612–4624PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wu Z, Hartov A, Paulsen K, Roberts DW (2004) Multimodal image re-registration via mutual information to account for initial tissue motion during image-guided neurosurgery. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 3: 1675–1678PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mercier L, Fonov V, Del Maestro RF, Petrecca K, Østergaard LRC (2010) D.L. Rigid registration of 3D ultrasound and MRI: comparing two approaches on nine tumor cas. In: CIM symposium on brain, body and machine, Montreal, Canada, Nov 2010. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gobbi DG, Comeau RM, Peters TM (1999) Ultrasound probe tracking for real-time ultrasound/MRI overlay and visualization of brain shift. In: MICCAI 1999, Cambridge, UK. Springer, Lecture notes in computer science, pp 920–927Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Solberg OV, Lindseth F, Torp H, Blake RE, Hernes TA (2007) Freehand 3d ultrasound reconstruction algorithms—a review. Ultrasound Med BiolGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Neelin P (1998) The MINC file format:from bytes to brains. NeuroImage 7(4): 786Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Coupe P, Yger P, Prima S, Hellier P, Kervrann C, Barillot C (2008) An optimized blockwise nonlocal means denoising filter for 3-D magnetic resonance images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 27(4): 425–441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    MacDonald D, Kabani N, Avis D, Evans AC (2000) Automated 3-D extraction of inner and outer surfaces of cerebral cortex from MRI. Neuroimage 12(3): 340–356PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zijdenbos AP, Dawant BM, Margolin RA, Palmer AC (1994) Morphometric analysis of white matter lesions in MR images: method and validation. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 13(4): 716–724PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Janke AL, Evans AC (2006) Collins DL MNI and Talairach space: Everything you wanted to know but were afraid to ask. In: HMB, Florence, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Collins D, Zijdenbos A, Baaré W, Evans A (1999) ANIMAL+INSECT: improved cortical structure segmentation. In: Kuba A, Šáamal M, Todd-Pokropek A (eds) information processing in medical imaging, vol 1613. Lecture notes in computer science. Springer Berlin, pp 210–223. doi: 10.1007/3-540-48714-x_16
  42. 42.
    Shekhar R, Zagrodsky V (2002) Mutual information-based rigid and nonrigid registration of ultrasound volumes. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 21(1): 9–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Otsu N (1979) A threshold selection method from gray-level histograms. IEEE Trans Sys Man Cyber 9: 62–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Jannin P, Fitzpatrick JM, Hawkes DJ, Pennec X, Shahidi R, Vannier MW (2002) Validation of medical image processing in image-guided therapy. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 21(12): 1445–1449. doi: 10.1109/TMI.2002.806568 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Reinertsen I, Descoteaux M, Siddiqi K, Collins DL (2007) Validation of vessel-based registration for correction of brain shift. Med Image Anal 11(4): 374–388PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lindseth F, Ommedal S, Bang J, Unsgaard G, Nagelhus Hernes TA (2001) Image fusion of ultrasound and MRI as an aid for assessing anatomical shifts and improving overview and interpretation in ultrasound guided neurosurgery. In: CARS 2001, pp 247–252Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hartov A, Roberts DW, Paulsen KD (2008) A comparative analysis of coregistered ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in neurosurgery. Neurosurgery 62(3 Suppl 1): 91–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© CARS 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laurence Mercier
    • 1
  • Vladimir Fonov
    • 1
  • Claire Haegelen
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Rolando F. Del Maestro
    • 5
  • Kevin Petrecca
    • 5
  • D. Louis Collins
    • 6
  1. 1.McConnell Brain Imaging CentreMontreal Neurological Institute, McGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.INSERM, U746, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of Rennes IRennesFrance
  3. 3.INRIA, VisAGeSUnit/ProjectUniversity of Rennes IRennesFrance
  4. 4.CNRS, UMR 6074, IRISAUniversity of Rennes IRennesFrance
  5. 5.Brain Tumour Research Centre, McGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  6. 6.McConnell Brain Imaging CenterMontreal Neurological Institute, McGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations