Soft tissue deformation tracking by means of an optimized fiducial marker layout with application to cancer tumors
Interventional radiology methods have been adopted for intraoperative control of the surgical region of interest (ROI) in a wide range of minimally invasive procedures. One major obstacle that hinders the success of procedures using interventional radiology methods is the preoperative and intraoperative deformation of the ROI. While fiducial markers (FM) tracing has been shown to be promising in tracking such deformations, determining the optimal placement of the FM in the ROI remains a significant challenge. The current study proposes a computational framework to address this problem by preoperatively optimizing the layout of FM, thereby enabling an accurate tracking of the ROI deformations.
The proposed approach includes three main components: (1) creation of virtual deformation benchmarks, (2) method of predicting intraoperative tissue deformation based on FM registration, and (3) FM layout optimization. To account for the large variety of potential ROI deformations, virtual benchmarks are created by applying a multitude of random force fields on the tumor surface in physically based simulations. The ROI deformation prediction is carried out by solving the inverse problem of finding the smoothest force field that leads to the observed FM displacements. Based on this formulation, a simulated annealing approach is employed to optimize the FM layout that produces the best prediction accuracy.
The proposed approach is capable of finding an FM layout that outperforms the rationally chosen layouts by 40% in terms of ROI prediction accuracy. For a maximum induced displacement of 20 mm on the tumor surface, the average maximum error between the benchmarks and our FM-optimized predictions is about 1.72 mm, which falls within the typical resolution of ultrasound imaging.
The proposed framework can optimize FM layout to effectively reduce the errors in the intraoperative deformation prediction process, thus bridging the gap between preoperative imaging and intraoperative tissue deformation.
KeywordsTumor deformation Shape reconstruction Fiducial markers Layout optimization Stochastic optimization Laplace–Beltrami operator
Authors would like to thank Prof. Gal Shafirstein and Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center for providing anatomical geometries from CT scanning.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 1.Barkhausen J, Kahn T, Krombach GA, Barkhausen J, Kahn T, Krombach GA, Kuhl CK, Lotz J, Maintz D, Ricke J, Schönberg SO, Vogl TJ, Wacker FK, German Association of Chairmen in Academic Radiology (KLR) (2017) White paper: interventional MRI: current status and potential for development considering economic perspectives, part 1: general application. ROFO Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Nuklearmed 189:611–623. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-110011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 4.Hsu WJ, Ho MC, Lian FL, Yen JY, Lin WL, Chen YY (2015) Computation of liver deformations for minimally invasive surgery. In: 2015 International automatic control conference (CACS). pp 7–12Google Scholar
- 5.Heiselman JS, Clements LW, Collins JA, Simpson AL, Geevarghese SK, Kingham TP, Jarnagin WR, Miga MI (2017) Characterization and correction of intraoperative soft tissue deformation in image-guided laparoscopic liver surgery. J Med Imaging 5:021203. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JMI.5.2.021203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Lunn KE, Paulsen KD, Roberts DW, Kennedy FE, Hartov A, Platenikb LA (2003) Nonrigid brain registration: synthesizing full volume deformation fields from model basis solutions constrained by partial volume intraoperative data. Comput Vis Image Underst 89:299–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1077-3142(03)00005-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Khallaghi S, Sánchez CA, Rasoulian A, Sun Y, Imani F, Khojaste A, Goksel O, Romagnoli C, Abdi H, Chang S, Mousavi P, Fenster A, Ward A, Fels S, Abolmaesumi P (2015) Biomechanically constrained surface registration: application to MR-TRUS fusion for prostate interventions. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 34:2404–2414. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2015.2440253 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Franaszek M, Cheok GS (2017) Selection of fiducial locations and performance metrics for point-based rigid-body registration. Precis Eng 47:362–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precisioneng.2016.09.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Bathe KJ (1996) Finite element procedures. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
- 21.Crane K, de Goes F, Desbrun M, Schröder P (2013) Digital geometry processing with discrete exterior calculus. In: ACM SIGGRAPH 2013 Courses. ACM, New York, pp 7:1–7:126Google Scholar