MICCAI 2010: Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2010 pp 383-391 | Cite as
MRI-Guided Robotic Prostate Biopsy: A Clinical Accuracy Validation
Abstract
Prostate cancer is a major health threat for men. For over five years, the U.S. National Cancer Institute has performed prostate biopsies with a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided robotic system. Purpose: A retrospective evaluation methodology and analysis of the clinical accuracy of this system is reported. Methods: Using the pre and post-needle insertion image volumes, a registration algorithm that contains a two-step rigid registration followed by a deformable refinement was developed to capture prostate dislocation during the procedure. The method was validated by using three-dimensional contour overlays of the segmented prostates and the registrations were accurate up to 2 mm. Results: It was found that tissue deformation was less of a factor than organ displacement. Out of the 82 biopsies from 21 patients, the mean target displacement, needle placement error, and clinical biopsy error was 5.9 mm, 2.3 mm, and 4 mm, respectively. Conclusion: The results suggest that motion compensation for organ displacement should be used to improve targeting accuracy.
Keywords
Prostate Biopsy Needle Insertion Needle Placement Pubic Bone Target DisplacementReferences
- 1.Jemal, A., Siegel, R., Ward, E., Hao, Y., Xu, J., Thun, M.: Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J. Clin. 59(4), 225–249 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.Presti Jr., J.: Prostate cancer: Assessment of risk using digital rectal examination, tumor grade, prostate-specific antigen, and systematic biopsy. Radiol. Clin. North Amer. 38(1), 49–58 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Terris, M., Wallen, E., Stamey, T.: Comparison of mid-lobe versus lateral systematic sextant biopsies in detection of prostate cancer. Urol. Int. 59, 239–242 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Wefer, A., Hricak, H., Vigneron, D., Coakley, F., Lu, Y., Wefer, J., Mueller-Lisse, U., Carroll, P., Kurhanewicz, J.: Sextant localization of prostate cancer: comparison of sextant biopsy, magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging with step section histology. J. Urol. 163(2), 400–404 (2000)Google Scholar
- 5.Susil, R., Ménard, C., Krieger, A., Coleman, J., Camphausen, K., Choyke, P., Fichtinger, G., Whitcomb, L., Coleman, C., Atalar, E.: Transrectal prostate biopsy and fiducial marker placement in a standard 1.5T magnetic resonance imaging scanner. J. Urol. 175(1), 113–120 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Adusumilli, S., Pretourius, E.: Magnetic resonance imaging of prostate cancer. Semin. Urol. Oncol. 20, 192–210 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Krieger, A., Susil, R., Menard, C., Coleman, J., Fichtinger, G., Atalar, E., Whitcomb, L.: Design of novel MRI compatible manipulator for image guided prostate interventions. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 52(2), 295–304 (2008)Google Scholar
- 8.Xu, H., Lasso, A., Vikal, S., Guion, P., Krieger, A., Kaushal, A., Whitcomb, L., Fichtinger, G.: Accuracy validation for MRI-guided robotic prostate biopsy. In: SPIE Medical Imaging: Visualization, Image-Guided Procedure, and Modeling, vol. 7625, pp. 762517–762517–8 (2010)Google Scholar
- 9.Karnik, V., Fenster, A., Bax, J., Cool, D., Gardi, L., Gyacskov, I., Romagnoli, C., Ward, A.: Assessment of registration accuracy in three-dimensional transrectal ultrasound images of prostates. In: SPIE Medical Imaging: Visualization, Image-guided Procedures and Modeling, vol. 7625, pp. 762516–762516–8 (2010)Google Scholar
- 10.Misra, S., Macura, K., Ramesh, K., Okamura, A.: The importance of organ geometry and boundary constraints for planning of medical interventions. Medical Engineering and Physics 31(2), 195–206 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar