Advertisement

External Clinical Validation of Prone and Supine CT Colonography Registration

  • Holger R. Roth
  • Darren J. Boone
  • Steve Halligan
  • Thomas E. Hampshire
  • Jamie R. McClelland
  • Mingxing Hu
  • Shonit Punwani
  • Stuart Taylor
  • David J. Hawkes
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7601)

Abstract

This paper provides an external validation of a prone-supine registration algorithm for CT colonography (CTC). A validation sample of 49 patient cases with 66 polyps (6 to 30 mm) was selected from a publicly available, anonymized CTC archive. To enhance generalizability, no case was excluded due to poor preparation or inadequate distension. Corresponding prone and supine polyp coordinates were recorded and the endoluminal surfaces registered: a Markov Random Field technique was used to find feature matches between prone/supine acquisitions and following mapping of the endoluminal surface to a cylinder, dense surface correspondence was achieved via cylindrical non-rigid registration. The polyp registration error was determined and a subjective assessment of registration made for 2D slice-based and 3D endoluminal data display using a pre-specified scoring system. Results were compared to using “normalized distance along the colon centerline” (NDACC) which approximates to the method currently employed to match colonic positions using proprietary CT colonography interpretation software. Registration was possible in all 49 cases. Overall mean 3D polyp registration error was significantly smaller with 19.9 mm in comparison to 27.7 mm using NDACC (p=0.001). 82.7% of polyp matches were defined as “successful” in comparison to 37.1% using NDACC according to the pre-specified criteria. Similarly, using 2D visualization, 62.1% registrations were “successful” and only 22.7% using NDACC. Full surface-based prone-to-supine registration can successfully map the location of a polyp identified on one acquisition to the corresponding endoluminal surface in the opposing acquisition, greatly facilitating polyp matching and aiding interpretation. Our method compares favorably to using NDACC.

Keywords

CT colonography image registration 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Acar, B., Napel, S., Paik, D., Li, P., Yee, J., Beaulieu, C., Jeffrey, R.: Registration of supine and prone CT colonography data: Method and evaluation. Radiology 221, 332 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fukano, E., Oda, M., Kitasaka, T., Suenaga, Y., Takayama, T., Takabatake, H., Mori, M., Natori, H., Nawano, S., Mori, K.: Haustral fold registration in CT colonography and its application to registration of virtual stretched view of the colon. In: Proc. SPIE Med. Imaging, vol. 7624, p. 762420 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Halligan, S., Taylor, S., Dehmeshki, J., Amin, H., Ye, X., Tsang, J., Roddie, M.: Computer-assisted detection for CT colonography: external validation. Clin. Radiol. 61, 758–763 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hampshire, T., Roth, H., Hu, M., Boone, D., Slabaugh, G., Punwani, S., Halligan, S., Hawkes, D.: Automatic Prone to Supine Haustral Fold Matching in CT Colonography Using a Markov Random Field Model. In: Fichtinger, G., Martel, A., Peters, T. (eds.) MICCAI 2011, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6891, pp. 508–515. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hara, A., Kuo, M., Blevins, M., Chen, M., Yee, J., Dachman, A., Menias, C., Siewert, B., Cheema, J., Obregon, R., et al.: National CT colonography trial (ACRIN 6664): comparison of three full-laxative bowel preparations in more than 2500 average-risk patients. Am. J. Roentgenol. 196, 1076–1082 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Huang, A., Roy, D., Summers, R., Franaszek, M., Petrick, N., Choi, J., Pickhardt, P.: Teniae coli–based circumferential localization system for CT colonography: Feasibility study. Radiology 243, 551–560 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jin, M., Kim, J., Luo, F., Gu, X.: Discrete surface ricci flow. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graphics 14, 1030–1043 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johnson, C., Chen, M., Toledano, A., Heiken, J., Dachman, A., Kuo, M., Menias, C., Siewert, B., Cheema, J., Obregon, R., et al.: Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers. N. Engl. J. Med. 359, 1207–1217 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Li, P., Napel, S., Acar, B., Paik, D., Jeffrey Jr., R., Beaulieu, C.: Registration of central paths and colonic polyps between supine and prone scans in computed tomography colonography: Pilot study. Med. Phys. 31, 2912–2923 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Modat, M., Ridgway, G., Taylor, Z., Lehmann, M., Barnes, J., Hawkes, D., Fox, N., Ourselin, S.: Fast free-form deformation using graphics processing units. Comput. Meth. Prog. Bio. 98, 278–284 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Näppi, J., Okamura, A., Frimmel, H., Dachman, A., Yoshida, H.: Region-based supine-prone correspondence for reduction of false-positive CAD polyp candidates in CT colonography. Acad. Radiol. 12, 695–707 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Punwani, S., Halligan, S., Tolan, D., Taylor, S., Hawkes, D.: Quantitative assessment of colonic movement between prone and supine patient positions during CT colonography. Br. J. Radiol. 82, 475–481 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roth, H., McClelland, J., Boone, D., Modat, M., Cardoso, M., Hampshire, T., Hu, M., Punwani, S., Ourselin, S., Slabaugh, G., Halligan, S., Hawkes, D.: Registration of the endoluminal surfaces of the colon derived from prone and supine CT colonography. Med. Phys. 38, 3077–3089 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Suh, J., Wyatt, C.: Deformable registration of supine and prone colons for computed tomographic colonography. J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr. 33, 902–911 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Suh, J., Wyatt, C.: Registration of prone and supine colons in the presence of topological changes. In: Proc. SPIE Med. Imaging, vol. 6916, p. 69160C (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Summers, R., Swift, J., Dwyer, A., Choi, J., Pickhardt, P.: Normalized distance along the colon centerline: a method for correlating polyp location on CT colonography and optical colonoscopy. Am. J. Roentgenol. 193, 1296–1304 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    de Vries, A., Truyen, R., Van der Peijl, J., Florie, J., van Gelder, R., Gerritsen, F., Stoker, J.: Feasibility of automated matching of supine and prone CT-colonography examinations. Br. J. Radiol. 79, 740–744 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wang, S., Yao, J., Liu, J., Petrick, N., Van Uitert, R., Periaswamy, S., Summers, R.: Registration of prone and supine CT colonography scans using correlation optimized warping and canonical correlation analysis. Med. Phys. 36, 5595–5603 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yee, J., Kumar, N., Hung, R., Akerkar, G., Kumar, P., Wall, S.: Comparison of supine and prone scanning separately and in combination at CT colonography. Radiology 226, 653–661 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yoshida, H., Näppi, J.: Three-dimensional computer-aided diagnosis scheme for detection of colonic polyps. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 20, 1261–1274 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zeng, W., Marino, J., Chaitanya Gurijala, K., Gu, X., Kaufman, A.: Supine and prone colon registration using quasi-conformal mapping. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph 16, 1348–1357 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Holger R. Roth
    • 1
  • Darren J. Boone
    • 2
  • Steve Halligan
    • 2
  • Thomas E. Hampshire
    • 1
  • Jamie R. McClelland
    • 1
  • Mingxing Hu
    • 1
  • Shonit Punwani
    • 2
  • Stuart Taylor
    • 2
  • David J. Hawkes
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Medical Image ComputingUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Centre for Medical Imaging, Department of Specialist RadiologyUniversity College HospitalLondonUK

Personalised recommendations