Automatic method to assess local CT-MR imaging registration accuracy on images of the head.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Precise registration of CT and MR images is crucial in many clinical cases for proper diagnosis, decision making or navigation in surgical interventions. Various algorithms can be used to register CT and MR datasets, but prior to clinical use the result must be validated. To evaluate the registration result by visual inspection is tiring and time-consuming. We propose a new automatic registration assessment method, which provides the user a color-coded fused representation of the CT and MR images, and indicates the location and extent of poor registration accuracy. METHODS The method for local assessment of CT-MR registration is based on segmentation of bone structures in the CT and MR images, followed by a voxel correspondence analysis. The result is represented as a color-coded overlay. The algorithm was tested on simulated and real datasets with different levels of noise and intensity non-uniformity. RESULTS Based on tests on simulated MR imaging data, it was found that the algorithm was robust for noise levels up to 7% and intensity non-uniformities up to 20% of the full intensity scale. Due to the inability to distinguish clearly between bone and cerebro-spinal fluids in the MR image (T1-weighted), the algorithm was found to be optimistic in the sense that a number of voxels are classified as well-registered although they should not. However, nearly all voxels classified as misregistered are correctly classified. CONCLUSION The proposed algorithm offers a new way to automatically assess the CT-MR image registration accuracy locally in all the areas of the volume that contain bone and to represent the result with a user-friendly, intuitive color-coded overlay on the fused dataset.

[1]  Isaac N. Bankman,et al.  Handbook of Medical Imaging. Processing and Analysis , 2002 .

[2]  N. Otsu.  A threshold selection method from gray level histograms , 1979 .

[3]  Colin Studholme,et al.  Visual assessment of the accuracy of retrospective registration of MR and CT images of the brain , 1998, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[4]  D J Hawkes,et al.  Algorithms for radiological image registration and their clinical application , 1998, Journal of anatomy.

[5]  Jim Graham.  Image Processing and Analysis: A Practical Approach , 2000 .

[6]  Gerald Q. Maguire,et al.  Comparison and evaluation of retrospective intermodality brain image registration techniques. , 1997, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[7]  Paul A. Viola,et al.  Alignment by Maximization of Mutual Information , 1997, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[8]  Roger P. Woods.  Validation of registration accuracy , 2000 .

[9]  Richard M. Leahy,et al.  Segmentation of the skull in 3D human MR images using mathematical morphology , 2002, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[10]  Colin Studholme,et al.  Automated 3-D registration of MR and CT images of the head , 1996, Medical Image Anal..

[11]  Isabelle M. Germano,et al.  Advanced Techniques in Image-Guided Brain and Spine Surgery , 2002 .

[12]  Daniel Rueckert,et al.  3D analysis: Registration of biomedical images , 2000 .

[13]  Jay B. West,et al.  Fiducial Point Placement and the Accuracy of Point-based, Rigid Body Registration , 2001, Neurosurgery.

[14]  Max A. Viergever,et al.  Image registration by maximization of combined mutual information and gradient information , 2000, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.