Advertisement

Segmentation of the Biliary Tree from MRCP Images via the Monogenic Signal

Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1248)

Abstract

Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), an MRI-based technique for imaging the bile and pancreatic ducts, plays a vital role in the investigation of pancreatobiliary diseases. In current clinical practice, MRCP image interpretation remains primarily qualitative, though there is growing interest in using quantitative biomarkers, computed from segmentations of the biliary tree, to provide more objective assessments. The variable image quality and duct contrasts in MRCP images, as well as the presence of bifurcations, tortuous bile ducts and bright gastrointestinal structures, makes segmenting the biliary tree from MRCP images a challenging task. We propose a method, based on the monogenic signal, for detecting the biliary tree in MRCP images. Using both phantom and clinical data we show that by tuning the monogenic signal to detect symmetric features we can successfully detect bile ducts and obtain accurate duct diameter measurements. Compared to the Hessian-based Frangi vesselness filter, we show that our method gives superior background noise suppression and performs better at duct bifurcations, where the model assumptions underlying vesselness fail.

Keywords

Monogenic signal Biliary tree Tubular enhancement 

References

  1. 1.
    Griffin, N., Charles-Edwards, G., Grant, L.A.: Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography: the ABC of MRCP. Insights into imaging 3(1), 11–21 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ruiz, A., Lemoinne, S., Carrat, F., Corpechot, C., Chazouillères, O., Arrivé, L.: Radiologic course of primary sclerosing cholangitis: assessment by three-dimensional magnetic resonance cholangiography and predictive features of progression. Hepatology 59(1), 242–250 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gilligan, L.A., et al.: Differentiating pediatric autoimmune liver diseases by quantitative magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. Abdom. Radiol. 45(1), 168–176 (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-02184-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Robinson, K., Whelan, P.F.: Analysis of the pancreato-biliary system from MRCP. In: 18th IEEE Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS 2005), pp. 253–258 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fraz, M.M., et al.: Blood vessel segmentation methodologies in retinal images–a survey. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 108(1), 407–433 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Frangi, A.F., Niessen, W.J., Vincken, K.L., Viergever, M.A.: Multiscale vessel enhancement filtering. In: Wells, W.M., Colchester, A., Delp, S. (eds.) MICCAI 1998. LNCS, vol. 1496, pp. 130–137. Springer, Heidelberg (1998).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0056195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goldfinger, M.H., Ridgway, G.R., Ferreira, C., et al.: Quantitative MRCP imaging: accuracy, repeatability, reproducibility, and cohort-derived normative ranges. J. Magn. Reson. Imag. JMRI (2020). Accessed 08 Mar 2020.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.27113
  8. 8.
    Vikal, S., Brady, J.M.: Method and apparatus for generating quantitative data from biliary tree structures, GB Patent GB2549459A. Accessed 25 Oct 2017Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Felsberg, M., Sommer, G.: The monogenic signal. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 49(12), 3136–3144 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Läthén, G., Jonasson, J., Borga, M.: Blood vessel segmentation using multi-scale quadrature filtering. Pattern Recogn. Lett. 31(8), 762–767 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhao, Y., et al.: Automatic 2-D/3-D vessel enhancement in multiple modality images using a weighted symmetry filter. IEEE Trans. Med. Imag. 37(2), 438–450 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moccia, S., De Momi, E., El Hadji, S., Mattos, L.S.: Blood vessel segmentation algorithms—review of methods, datasets and evaluation metrics. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 158, 71–91 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mellor, M., Brady, M.: Phase mutual information as a similarity measure for registration. Med. Image Anal. 9(4), 330–343 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kovesi, P.: Symmetry and asymmetry from local phase. In: Tenth Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 2–4 (1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kovesi, P.: Image features from phase congruency. Videre J. Comput. Vis. Res. 1(3), 1–26 (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rajpoot, K., Grau, V., Noble, J.A.: Local-phase based 3D boundary detection using monogenic signal and its application to real-time 3-D echocardiography images. In: 2009 IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro, pp. 783–786. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dobrovolskij, D., Persch, J., Schladitz, K., Steidl, G.: Structure detection with second order Riesz transforms. Image Anal. Stereol. 38(1), 107–119 (2019)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Håkansson, K., Christoffersson, J.O., Leander, P., Ekberg, O., Håkansson, H.O.: On the appearance of bile in clinical MR cholangiopancreatography. Acta Radiol. 43(4), 401–410 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hart, P.E., Nilsson, N.J., Raphael, B.: A formal basis for the heuristic determination of minimum cost paths. IEEE Trans. Syst. Sci. Cybern. 4(2), 100–107 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Perspectum Ltd.OxfordUK

Personalised recommendations