MRI – Mammography 2D/3D Data Fusion for Breast Pathology Assessment

  • Christian P. Behrenbruch
  • Kostas Marias
  • Paul A. Armitage
  • Margaret Yam
  • Niall Moore
  • Ruth E. English
  • J. Michael Brady
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1935)


Increasing use is being made of contrast-enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (Gd-DTPA) for breast cancer assessment since it provides 3D functional information via pharmacokinetic interaction between contrast agent and tumour vascularity, and because it is applicable to women of all ages. Contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) is complimentary to conventional X-ray mammography since it is a relatively low-resolution functional counterpart of a comparatively high-resolution 2D structural representation. However, despite the additional information provided by MRI, mammography is still an extremely important diagnostic imaging modality, particularly for several common conditions such as ductal carcinoma in-situ (DCIS) where it has been shown that there is a strong correlation between microcalcification clusters and malignancy [1]. Pathological indicators such as calcifications and fine spiculations are not visible in CE-MRI and therefore there is clinical and diagnostic value to fusing the high-resolution structural information available from mammography with the functional data acquired from MRI imaging. This paper presents a novel data fusion technique whereby medio-lateral (ML) and cranio-caudal (CC) mammograms (2D data) are registered to 3D contrast-enhanced MRI volumes. We utilise a combination of pharmacokinetic modelling, projection geometry, wavelet-based landmark detection and thin-plate spline non-rigid registration to transform the coordinates of regions of interest (ROIs) from the 2D mammograms to the spatial reference frame of the contrast-enhanced MRI volume.


  1. 1.
    Lanyi, M.: Diagnosis and differential diagnosis of breast calcifications. Springer, Berlin (1986)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gilhuijs, K.G.A.: Automated verification of radiation treatment geometry, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Febo-druk, Enschede-Utrecht, The Netherlands (1995)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hayton, P., Brady, J.M., Tarassenko, L., Moore, N.: Analysis of dynamic MR breast images using a model of contrast enhancement. Medical Image Analysis 1(3). Oxford University Press (April 1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Marias, K., Brady, J.M., et al.: Registration and matching of temporal mammograms for detecting abnormalities. Medical Imaging Understanding and Analysis, Oxford (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Marias, K., Behrenbruch, C.P., Brady, J.M.: Robust Breast Edge Segmentation in Mammography, Engineering Science Technical Report 19990805#2, Oxford University (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bookstein, F.L.: Principal Warps: Thin-Plate Splines and the Decomposition of Deformations. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 11(6), 567–585 (1989)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marias, K., Behrenbruch, C., et al.: Multi-scale Landmark Selection for Improved Registration of Temporal Mammograms. In: IWDM (International Workshop in Digital Mammography) 2000, Toronto, Canada, Elsevier, Amsterdam (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Coifman, R.R., Meyer, Y., Quake, S.R., Wickerhauser, M.V.: Signal processing and compression with wavelet packets. In: Meyer and Roques [9], pp. 77–93 (1992)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Progress in Wavelet Analysis and Applications. In: Meyer, Y., Roques, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Conference Wavelets and Applications, Toulouse, France, June 8-13 (1992); Observatoire Midi-Pyrénées de l’Université Paul Sebatier, Editions FrontieresGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Daubechies, I.: Orthonormal bases of compactly supported wavelets. Communications on Pure and AppliedMathematics XLI, 909–996 (1988)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Daubechies, I.: Ten lectures on wavelets. CMBS, SIAM 61, 258–261 (1994)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Coifman, R.R., Wickerhauser, M.V.: Entropy based algorithms for best basis selection. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 32, 712–771 (1992)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Parker, G.J.M., Schnabel, J.A., Barker, G.J.: Nonlinear Smoothing of MR Images Using Approximate Entropy - A Local Measure of Signal Intensity Irregularity. Technical Report, NMR Research Unit, Institute of Neurology, University College London (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Koenderink, J.: The structure of images. Biological Cybernetics 50, 363–370 (1984)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhu, S.C., Yuille, A.: Region Competition: Unifying Snakes, Region Growing, and Bayes/MDL for Multiband Image Segmentation. PAMI 18(9), 884–900 (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rohr, K., et al.: Point-based elastic registration of medical image data using approximating thin-plate splines. In: Höhne, K.H., Kikinis, R. (eds.) VBC 1996. LNCS, vol. 1131. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yam, M., Brady, J.M., et al.: Reconstructing microcalcification clusters in 3-D using a parameterized breast compression model. In: Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery (CARS), Paris (1999)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Highnam, R.P., Brady, J.M.: Mammographic Image Processing. Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian P. Behrenbruch
    • 1
  • Kostas Marias
    • 1
    • 2
  • Paul A. Armitage
    • 1
  • Margaret Yam
    • 1
  • Niall Moore
    • 3
  • Ruth E. English
    • 4
  • J. Michael Brady
    • 1
  1. 1.Medical Vision Laboratory (Robotics), Engineering ScienceOxford UniversityOxfordUK
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryRoyal Free and University College Medical School, UCLLondonUK
  3. 3.Magnetic Resonance Imaging CentreJohn Radcliffe HospitalOxfordUK
  4. 4.Breast Care UnitChurchill HospitalOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations