X-Ray Mammogram Registration: A Novel Validation Method

  • John H. Hipwell
  • Christine Tanner
  • William R. Crum
  • David J. Hawkes
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4046)


Establishing spatial correspondence between features visible in x-ray mammograms obtained at different times has great potential to aid assessment of change in the breast and facilitate its quantification. The literature contains numerous non-rigid registration algorithms developed for this purpose, but quantitative estimation of registration accuracy is limited. We describe a novel validation method which simulates plausible mammographic compressions of the breast using an MRI derived finite element model. Known 3D displacements are projected into 2D and test images simulated from these same compressed MR volumes. In this way we can generate convincing images with known 2D displacements with which to validate a registration algorithm. We illustrate this approach by computing the accuracy for a non-rigid registration algorithm applied to mammograms simulated from three patient MR datasets.


Registration Error Registration Algorithm Glandular Tissue Spatial Correspondence Medical Image Computing 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Crum, W.R., et al.: Anisotropic Multiscale Fluid Registration: Evaluation in Magnetic Resonance Breast Imaging. Phys. Med. Biol. 50, 5153–5174 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    ANSYS Inc., 275 Technology Drive, Canonsburg, PA 5317, USA (2002),
  3. 3.
    Pathmanathan, P., Gavaghan, D., Whiteley, J., Brady, M., Nash, M., Nielsen, P., Rajagopal, V.: Predicting Tumour Location by Simulating Large Deformations of the Breast Using a 3D Finite Element Model and Nonlinear Elasticity. In: Barillot, C., Haynor, D.R., Hellier, P. (eds.) MICCAI 2004. LNCS, vol. 3216, pp. 217–224. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tanner, C., Degenhard, A., Schnabel, J.A., Castellano-Smith, A.D., Hayes, C., Sonoda, L.I., Leach, M.O., Hose, D.R., Hill, D.L.G., Hawkes, D.J.: Comparison of Biomechanical Breast Models: a Case Study. In: Medical Imaging 2002: Image Processing, vol. 1-3, vol. 4684, pp. 1807–1818 (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tanner, C., Schnabel, J.A., Leach, M.O., Hose, D.R., Hill, D.L.G., Hawkes, D.J.: Factors Influencing the Accuracy of Biomechanical Breast Models. Medical Phys. (in Press)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Krouskop, T.A., Wheeler, T.M., Kallel, F., Garra, B.S., Hall, T.: Elastic Moduli of Breast and Prostate Tissues Under Compression. Ultrasonic Imaging 20, 260–274 (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wellman, P.S.: Tactile Imaging. PhD thesis, Harvard University (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Azar, F.S., Metaxas, D.N., Schnall, M.D.: A Finite Model of the Breast for Predicting Mechanical Deformations during Biopsy Procedure. In: Proc. MMBIA 2000, pp. 38–45 (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Samani, A., Bishop, J., Yaffe, M.J., Plewes, D.B.: Biomechanical 3D Finite Element Modeling of the Human Breast Using MRI Data. IEEE Trans. Med. Imag. 20(4), 271–279 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brown, J., Buckley, D., Coulthard, A., Dixon, A.K.: Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening in Women at Genetic Risk of Breast Cancer: Imaging and Analysis Protocol for the UK Multicentre Study. Magnetic Resonance Imaging 18, 765–776 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • John H. Hipwell
    • 1
  • Christine Tanner
    • 1
  • William R. Crum
    • 1
  • David J. Hawkes
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Medical Image Computing, Malet Place Engineering BuildingUniversity College LondonLondon

Personalised recommendations