Clinical Image-Based Procedures. Translational Research in Medical Imaging

Although various modalities are used in prostate cancer imaging, transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided biopsy remains the gold standard for diagnosis. However, TRUS suffers from low sensitivity, leading to an elevated rate of false negative results. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) on the other hand provides currently the most accurate imagebased evaluation of the prostate. Thus, TRUS/MRI fusion image-guided biopsy has evolved to be the method of choice to circumvent the limitations of TRUS-only biopsy. Most commercial frameworks that offer such a solution rely on rigid TRUS/MRI fusion and rarely use additional information from other modalities such as Positron Emission Tomography (PET). Other frameworks require long interaction times and are complex to integrate with the clinical workflow. Available solutions are not fully able to meet the clinical requirements of speed and high precision at low cost simultaneously. We introduce an open source fusion biopsy framework that is low cost, simple to use and has minimal overhead in clinical workflow. Hence, it is ideal as a research platform for the implementation and rapid bench to bedside translation of new image registration and visualization approaches. We present the current status of the framework that uses pre-interventional PET and MRI rigidly registered with 3D TRUS for prostate biopsy guidance and discuss results from first clinical cases.

[1]  Timothy F. Cootes,et al.  Active Shape Models-Their Training and Application , 1995, Comput. Vis. Image Underst..

[2]  Chun Chen,et al.  SHAPE EVALUATION FOR WEIGHTED ACTIVE SHAPE MODELS , 2004 .

[3]  Marius George Linguraru,et al.  Generalized Multiresolution Hierarchical Shape Models via Automatic Landmark Clusterization , 2014, MICCAI.

[4]  Guillermo Sapiro,et al.  Online Learning for Matrix Factorization and Sparse Coding , 2009, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[5]  Sébastien Ourselin,et al.  Robust Registration of Multi-modal Images: Towards Real-Time Clinical Applications , 2002, MICCAI.

[6]  Gregory Shakhnarovich,et al.  Sparse Coding for Learning Interpretable Spatio-Temporal Primitives , 2010, NIPS.

[7]  N. Dyn,et al.  A butterfly subdivision scheme for surface interpolation with tension control , 1990, TOGS.

[8]  Benoit M. Dawant,et al.  Statistical Shape Model Segmentation and Frequency Mapping of Cochlear Implant Stimulation Targets in CT , 2012, MICCAI.

[9]  Juan J. Cerrolaza,et al.  Hierarchical Statistical Shape Models of Multiobject Anatomical Structures: Application to Brain MRI , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[10]  Takuya Yamazaki,et al.  Prognostic Significance of Quantitative Qrs Duration , 2022 .

[11]  Milan Sonka,et al.  Segmentation and interpretation of MR brain images. An improved active shape model , 1998, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[12]  Andriy Myronenko,et al.  Point Set Registration: Coherent Point Drift , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[13]  Alessandra Staglianò,et al.  DCE-MRI Analysis Using Sparse Adaptive Representations , 2011, MLMI.

[14]  Marco Caversaccio,et al.  Surgical planning tool for robotically assisted hearing aid implantation , 2013, International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery.

[15]  Omid Majdani,et al.  Automatic determination of optimal linear drilling trajectories for cochlear access accounting for drill‐positioning error , 2010, The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS.

[16]  David A. Boas,et al.  Tetrahedral mesh generation from volumetric binary and grayscale images , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro.