Position-based modeling of lesion displacement in ultrasound-guided breast biopsy

  • Eleonora TagliabueEmail author
  • Diego Dall’Alba
  • Enrico Magnabosco
  • Chiara Tenga
  • Igor Peterlik
  • Paolo Fiorini
Original Article



Although ultrasound (US) images represent the most popular modality for guiding breast biopsy, malignant regions are often missed by sonography, thus preventing accurate lesion localization which is essential for a successful procedure. Biomechanical models can support the localization of suspicious areas identified on a preoperative image during US scanning since they are able to account for anatomical deformations resulting from US probe pressure. We propose a deformation model which relies on position-based dynamics (PBD) approach to predict the displacement of internal targets induced by probe interaction during US acquisition.


The PBD implementation available in NVIDIA FleX is exploited to create an anatomical model capable of deforming online. Simulation parameters are initialized on a calibration phantom under different levels of probe-induced deformations; then, they are fine-tuned by minimizing the localization error of a US–visible landmark of a realistic breast phantom. The updated model is used to estimate the displacement of other internal lesions due to probe-tissue interaction.


The localization error obtained when applying the PBD model remains below 11 mm for all the tumors even for input displacements in the order of 30 mm. This proposed method obtains results aligned with FE models with faster computational performance, suitable for real-time applications. In addition, it outperforms rigid model used to track lesion position in US-guided breast biopsies, at least halving the localization error for all the displacement ranges considered.


Position-based dynamics approach has proved to be successful in modeling breast tissue deformations during US acquisition. Its stability, accuracy and real-time performance make such model suitable for tracking lesions displacement during US-guided breast biopsy.


Biomechanical model Position-based dynamics Ultrasound-guided breast biopsy Ultrasound tracking 



This Project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Grant Agreement Nos. 742671 “ARS” and 688188 “MURAB”).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (mp4 5085 KB)


  1. 1.
    O’Flynn E, Wilson A, Michell M (2010) Image-guided breast biopsy: state-of-the-art. Clin Radiol 65(4):259–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Apesteguía L, Pina LJ (2011) Ultrasound-guided core-needle biopsy of breast lesions. Insights Imaging 2(4):493–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guo R, Lu G, Qin B, Fei B (2017) Ultrasound imaging technologies for breast cancer detection and management: a review. Ultrasound Med Biol 44:37–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kucukkaya F, Aribal E, Tureli D, Altas H, Kaya H (2016) Use of a volume navigation technique for combining real-time ultrasound and contrast-enhanced MRI: accuracy and feasibility of a novel technique for locating breast lesions. Am J Roentgenol 206(1):217–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aribal E, Tureli D, Kucukkaya F, Kaya H (2017) Volume navigation technique for ultrasound-guided biopsy of breast lesions detected only at MRI. Am J Roentgenol 208(6):1400–1409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hipwell JH, Vavourakis V, Han L, Mertzanidou T, Eiben B, Hawkes DJ (2016) A review of biomechanically informed breast image registration. Phys Med Biol 61(2):R1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhang J, Zhong Y, Gu C (2018) Deformable models for surgical simulation: a survey. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng 11:143–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bender J, Müller M, Macklin M (2017) A survey on position based dynamics, 2017. In: EUROGRAPHICS 2017 TutorialsGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bender J, Koschier D, Charrier P, Weber D (2014) Position-based simulation of continuous materials. Comput Graph 44:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rodero C, Real P, Zuñeda P, Monteagudo C, Lozano M, García-Fernández I (2016) Characterisation of position based dynamics for elastic materials. In: Proceedings of the XXVI spanish computer graphics conference, Eurographics Association, pp 49–57Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Berndt I, Torchelsen R, Maciel A (2017) Efficient surgical cutting with position-based dynamics. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 38(3):24–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pan J, Bai J, Zhao X, Hao A, Qin H (2015) Real-time haptic manipulation and cutting of hybrid soft tissue models by extended position-based dynamics. Comput Animat Virtual Worlds 26(3–4):321–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang Y, Xiong Y, Xu K, Tan K, Guo G (2006) A mass-spring model for surface mesh deformation based on shape matching. GRAPHITE 6:375–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Xu L, Lu Y, Liu Q (2018) Integrating viscoelastic mass spring dampers into position-based dynamics to simulate soft tissue deformation in real time. R Soc Open Sci 5(2):171,587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kubiak B, Pietroni N, Ganovelli F, Fratarcangeli M (2007) A robust method for real-time thread simulation. In: Proceedings of the 2007 ACM symposium on virtual reality software and technology, ACM, pp 85–88Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Camara M, Mayer E, Darzi A, Pratt P (2017) Simulation of patient-specific deformable ultrasound imaging in real time. In: Cardoso MJ, Arbel T, Tavares JMRS, Aylward S, Li S, Boctor E, Fichtinger G, Cleary K, Freeman B, Kohli L, Shipley Kane D, Oetgen M, Pujol S (eds) Imaging for patient-customized simulations and systems for point-of-care ultrasound. Springer, Cham, pp 11–18. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Camara M, Mayer E, Darzi A, Pratt P (2016) Soft tissue deformation for surgical simulation: a position-based dynamics approach. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 11(6):919–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Müller M, Heidelberger B, Teschner M, Gross M (2005) Meshless deformations based on shape matching. ACM Trans Graph 24(3):471–478. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    (2018) NVIDIA gameworks. Nvidia FleX. Accessed 20 Dec 2018
  20. 20.
    Lasso A, Heffter T, Rankin A, Pinter C, Ungi T, Fichtinger G (2014) Plus: open-source toolkit for ultrasound-guided intervention systems. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 61(10):2527–2537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fedorov A, Beichel R, Kalpathy-Cramer J, Finet J, Fillion-Robin JC, Pujol S, Bauer C, Jennings D, Fennessy F, Sonka M, Buatti J, Aylward S, Miller J, Pieper S, Kikinis R (2012) 3D slicer as an image computing platform for the quantitative imaging network. Magn Reson Imaging 30(9):1323–1341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tokuda J, Fischer GS, Papademetris X, Yaniv Z, Ibanez L, Cheng P, Liu H, Blevins J, Arata J, Golby AJ, Kapur T, Pieper S, Burdette E, Fichtinger G, Tempany C, Hata N (2009) Openigtlink: an open network protocol for image-guided therapy environment. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 5(4):423–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Amini R, Kartchner JZ, Stolz LA, Biffar D, Hamilton AJ, Adhikari S (2015) A novel and inexpensive ballistic gel phantom for ultrasound training. World J Emerg Med 6(3):225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mitchell M (1998) An introduction to genetic algorithms. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yushkevich PA, Piven J, Cody Hazlett H, Gimpel Smith R, Ho S, Gee JC, Gerig G (2006) User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: significantly improved efficiency and reliability. Neuroimage 31(3):1116–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cignoni P, Callieri M, Corsini M, Dellepiane M, Ganovelli F, Ranzuglia G (2008) MeshLab: an open-source mesh processing tool. In: Scarano V, Chiara RD, Erra U (eds) Eurographics Italian chapter conference, The Eurographics AssociationGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Audet C, Dennis JE Jr (2002) Analysis of generalized pattern searches. SIAM J Optim 13(3):889–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Faure F, Duriez C, Delingette H, Allard J, Gilles B, Marchesseau S, Talbot H, Courtecuisse H, Bousquet G, Peterlik I, Cotin S (2012) SOFA: a multi-model framework for interactive physical simulation. In: Payan Y (ed) Soft tissue biomechanical modeling for computer assisted surgery. Studies in mechanobiology, tissue engineering and biomaterials, vol 11. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 283–321. Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Visentin F, Groenhuis V, Maris B, DallAlba D, Siepel F, Stramigioli S, Fiorini P (2018) Iterative simulations to estimate the elastic properties from a series of MRI images followed by MRI-US validation. Med Biol Eng Comput 57:1–12Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schenk O, Gärtner K (2004) Solving unsymmetric sparse systems of linear equations with PARDISO. Future Gener Comput Syst 20(3):475–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Moreira P, Peterlik I, Herink M, Duriez C, Cotin S, Misra S (2013) Modelling prostate deformation: sofa versus experiments. Prostate 17(83.0):1Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Macklin M, Müller M, Chentanez N (2016) Xpbd: position-based simulation of compliant constrained dynamics. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on motion in games, ACM, pp 49–54Google Scholar

Copyright information

© CARS 2019
corrected publication 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of VeronaVeronaItaly
  2. 2.INRIAStrasbourgFrance

Personalised recommendations