Validation for 2D/3D registration. II: The comparison of intensity- and gradient-based merit functions using a new gold standard data set.

PURPOSE A new gold standard data set for validation of 2D/3D registration based on a porcine cadaver head with attached fiducial markers was presented in the first part of this article. The advantage of this new phantom is the large amount of soft tissue, which simulates realistic conditions for registration. This article tests the performance of intensity- and gradient-based algorithms for 2D/3D registration using the new phantom data set. METHODS Intensity-based methods with four merit functions, namely, cross correlation, rank correlation, correlation ratio, and mutual information (MI), and two gradient-based algorithms, the backprojection gradient-based (BGB) registration method and the reconstruction gradient-based (RGB) registration method, were compared. Four volumes consisting of CBCT with two fields of view, 64 slice multidetector CT, and magnetic resonance-T1 weighted images were registered to a pair of kV x-ray images and a pair of MV images. A standardized evaluation methodology was employed. Targets were evenly spread over the volumes and 250 starting positions of the 3D volumes with initial displacements of up to 25 mm from the gold standard position were calculated. After the registration, the displacement from the gold standard was retrieved and the root mean square (RMS), mean, and standard deviation mean target registration errors (mTREs) over 250 registrations were derived. Additionally, the following merit properties were computed: Accuracy, capture range, number of minima, risk of nonconvergence, and distinctiveness of optimum for better comparison of the robustness of each merit. RESULTS Among the merit functions used for the intensity-based method, MI reached the best accuracy with an RMS mTRE down to 1.30 mm. Furthermore, it was the only merit function that could accurately register the CT to the kV x rays with the presence of tissue deformation. As for the gradient-based methods, BGB and RGB methods achieved subvoxel accuracy (RMS mTRE down to 0.56 and 0.70 mm, respectively). Overall, gradient-based similarity measures were found to be substantially more accurate than intensity-based methods and could cope with soft tissue deformation and enabled also accurate registrations of the MR-T1 volume to the kV x-ray image. CONCLUSIONS In this article, the authors demonstrate the usefulness of a new phantom image data set for the evaluation of 2D/3D registration methods, which featured soft tissue deformation. The author's evaluation shows that gradient-based methods are more accurate than intensity-based methods, especially when soft tissue deformation is present. However, the current nonoptimized implementations make them prohibitively slow for practical applications. On the other hand, the speed of the intensity-based method renders these more suitable for clinical use, while the accuracy is still competitive.

[1]  T. Peters,et al.  2D-3D registration of coronary angiograms for cardiac procedure planning and guidance. , 2005, Medical physics.

[2]  Graeme P. Penney,et al.  Standardized evaluation methodology for 2-D-3-D registration , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[3]  Bostjan Likar,et al.  A protocol for evaluation of similarity measures for rigid registration , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[4]  Xavier Pennec,et al.  Validation of medical image processing in image-guided therapy , 2002 .

[5]  L. Joskowicz,et al.  Gradient-based 2-D/3-D rigid registration of fluoroscopic X-ray to CT , 2003, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[6]  P. Jannin,et al.  Assessment of Image-Guided Interventions , 2008 .

[7]  Fang-Fang Yin,et al.  Comparison of Similarity Measures for Rigid-body CT/Dual X-ray Image Registrations , 2007, Technology in cancer research & treatment.

[8]  Thomas Theußl,et al.  Isosurfaces on Optimal Regular Samples , 2003, VisSym.

[9]  Frank Sauer,et al.  Automatic registration of portal images and volumetric CT for patient positioning in radiation therapy , 2006, Medical Image Anal..

[10]  Michael I. Miga,et al.  Medical Imaging 2009: Visualization, Image-Guided Procedures, and Modeling , 2009 .

[11]  Pierre Jannin,et al.  Validation in medical image processing. , 2017 .

[12]  Wolfgang Birkfellner,et al.  A faster method for 3D/2D medical image registration—a simulation study , 2003, Physics in medicine and biology.

[13]  Guy Marchal,et al.  Multimodality image registration by maximization of mutual information , 1997, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[14]  Richard D. Komistek,et al.  A robust method for registration of three-dimensional knee implant models to two-dimensional fluoroscopy images , 2003, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[15]  Nassir Navab,et al.  Planning and intraoperative visualization of liver catheterizations: new CTA protocol and 2D-3D registration method. , 2007, Academic radiology.

[16]  Peter Kazanzides,et al.  Providing visual information to validate 2-D to 3-D registration , 2000, Medical Image Anal..

[17]  Serge Miguet,et al.  Patient setup error measurement using 3D intensity-based image registration techniques. , 2003, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[18]  Nicholas Ayache,et al.  The Correlation Ratio as a New Similarity Measure for Multimodal Image Registration , 1998, MICCAI.

[19]  D L Hill,et al.  Validation of a two- to three-dimensional registration algorithm for aligning preoperative CT images and intraoperative fluoroscopy images. , 2001, Medical physics.

[20]  William Hoff,et al.  In vivo determination of normal and anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knee kinematics. , 2005, Journal of biomechanics.

[21]  Nassir Navab,et al.  2D/3D registration based on volume gradients , 2005, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[22]  Leo Joskowicz,et al.  Registration of a CT-like atlas to fluoroscopic X-ray images using intensity correspondences , 2008, International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery.

[23]  T. Peters Image-guidance for surgical procedures , 2006, Physics in medicine and biology.

[24]  R L Galloway,et al.  The process and development of image-guided procedures. , 2001, Annual review of biomedical engineering.

[25]  Thomas S. Huang,et al.  Image processing , 1971 .

[26]  Boštjan Likar,et al.  “Gold standard” data for evaluation and comparison of 3D/2D registration methods , 2004, Computer aided surgery : official journal of the International Society for Computer Aided Surgery.

[27]  D. R. Fish,et al.  A patient-to-computed-tomography image registration method based on digitally reconstructed radiographs. , 1994, Medical physics.

[28]  Franjo Pernus,et al.  Towards real-time 2D/3D registration for organ motion monitoring in image-guided radiation therapy , 2010, Medical Imaging.

[29]  Kawal S. Rhode,et al.  Intensity-based 2-D - 3-D registration of cerebral angiograms , 2003, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[30]  Bostjan Likar,et al.  Robust Gradient-Based 3-D/2-D Registration of CT and MR to X-Ray Images , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[31]  M. Figl,et al.  Validation for 2D/3D registration. I: A new gold standard data set. , 2011, Medical physics.

[32]  Frank Deinzer,et al.  Extended Global Optimization Strategy for Rigid 2D/3D Image Registration , 2007, CAIP.

[33]  K. Cleary,et al.  Image-guided interventions : technology and applications , 2008 .

[34]  Nicholas Ayache,et al.  3D-2D Projective Registration of Free-Form Curves and Surfaces , 1997, Comput. Vis. Image Underst..

[35]  Steven D Chang,et al.  A STUDY OF THE ACCURACY OF CYBERKNIFE SPINAL RADIOSURGERY USING SKELETAL STRUCTURE TRACKING , 2007, Neurosurgery.

[36]  Tomaz Slivnik,et al.  3-D/2-D registration of CT and MR to X-ray images , 2003, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[37]  Jinkoo Kim,et al.  Effects of x-ray and CT image enhancements on the robustness and accuracy of a rigid 3D/2D image registration. , 2005, Medical physics.

[38]  William H. Press,et al.  Numerical Recipes in C, 2nd Edition , 1992 .

[39]  Reshma Munbodh,et al.  2D-3D registration for prostate radiation therapy based on a statistical model of transmission images. , 2009, Medical physics.

[40]  Pierre Jannin,et al.  Model for defining and reporting reference-based validation protocols in medical image processing , 2006, International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery.

[41]  Wolfgang Birkfellner,et al.  Wobbled splatting—a fast perspective volume rendering method for simulation of x-ray images from CT , 2005, Physics in medicine and biology.

[42]  Jürgen Weese,et al.  A comparison of similarity measures for use in 2-D-3-D medical image registration , 1998, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[43]  Peter Kazanzides,et al.  Anatomy-based registration of CT-scan and intraoperative X-ray images for guiding a surgical robot , 1998, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[44]  Richard Szeliski,et al.  Recovering the Position and Orientation of Free-Form Objects from Image Contours Using 3D Distance Maps , 1995, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[45]  Boštjan Likar,et al.  Standardized evaluation methodology for 3D/2D registration based on the Visible Human data set. , 2010, Medical physics.

[46]  Bostjan Likar,et al.  A review of 3D/2D registration methods for image-guided interventions , 2012, Medical Image Anal..

[47]  G. Kuduvalli,et al.  A fast, accurate, and automatic 2D-3D image registration for image-guided cranial radiosurgery. , 2008, Medical physics.

[48]  Jay B. West,et al.  Predicting error in rigid-body point-based registration , 1998, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[49]  David J. Hawkes,et al.  A comparison of a similarity-based and a feature-based 2-D-3-D registration method for neurointerventional use , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[50]  J. Kettenbach,et al.  Rigid 2D/3D slice-to-volume registration and its application on fluoroscopic CT images. , 2006, Medical physics.

[51]  Wolfgang Birkfellner,et al.  Fast DRR splat rendering using common consumer graphics hardware. , 2007, Medical physics.

[52]  S. K. Mishra,et al.  Nonconvex Optimization and Its Applications , 2008 .

[53]  J. Kettenbach,et al.  Stochastic rank correlation: a robust merit function for 2D/3D registration of image data obtained at different energies. , 2009, Medical physics.

[54]  Jakob Spork,et al.  High-performance GPU based Rendering for Real-Time, rigid 2D/3D-Image Registration in Radiation Oncology , 2011 .