Nonrigid registration of dynamic breast F-18-FDG PET/CT images using deformable FEM model and CT image warping

This study was undertaken to correct for motion artifacts in dynamic breast F-18-FDG PET/CT images, to improve differential-image quality, and to increase accuracy of time-activity curves. Dynamic PET studies, with subjects prone, and breast suspended freely employed a protocol with 50 frames, each 1-minute long. A 30 s long CT scan was acquired immediately before the first PET frame. F-18-FDG was administered during the first PET time frame. Fiducial skin markers (FSMs) each containing ~0.5 &mgr;Ci of Ge-68 were taped to each breast. In our PET/PET registration method we utilized CT data. For corresponding FSMs visible on the 1st and nth frames, the geometrical centroids of FSMs were found and their displacement vectors were estimated and used to deform the finite element method (FEM) mesh of the CT image (registered with 1st PET frame) to match the consecutive dynamic PET time frames. Each mesh was then deformed to match the 1st PET frame using known FSM displacement vectors as FEM loads, and the warped PET timeframe volume was created. All PET time frames were thus nonrigidly registered with the first frame. An analogy between orthogonal components of the displacement field and the temperature distribution in steady-state heat transfer in solids is used, via standard heat-conduction FEM software with "conductivity" of surface elements set arbitrarily significantly higher than that of volume elements. Consequently, the surface reaches steady state before the volume. This prevents creation of concentrated FEM loads at the locations of FSMs and reaching incorrect FEM solution. We observe improved similarity between the 1st and nth frames. The contrast and the spatial definition of metabolically hyperactive regions are superior in the registered 3D images compared to unregistered 3D images. Additional work is needed to eliminate small image artifacts due to FSMs.

[1]  Christian Hintze,et al.  Combination of low and high resolution sequences in two orientations for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast: more than a compromise , 2004, European Radiology.

[2]  C J Baines,et al.  Menstrual cycle variation in mammographic breast density: so who cares? , 1998, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[3]  M Soltys,et al.  Improving treatment planning accuracy through multimodality imaging. , 1996, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[4]  Paul K. Marsden,et al.  PET-MR image fusion in soft tissue sarcoma: accuracy, reliability and practicality of interactive point-based and automated mutual information techniques , 2002, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[5]  Andrzej Krol,et al.  A new application for displaying and fusing multimodal data sets , 2007, SPIE BiOS.

[6]  Mehmet Z. Unlu,et al.  Deformable model for 3D intramodal nonrigid breast image registration with fiducial skin markers , 2005, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[7]  Michèle Allard,et al.  A method to quantify the uptake rate of 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose in tissues. , 2004, Nuclear medicine communications.

[8]  J. Burkhardt,et al.  Core-needle and surgical breast biopsy: comparison of three methods of assessing cost. , 1999, Radiology.

[9]  H. Biersack,et al.  Breast cancer imaging with PET and SPECT agents: an in vivo comparison. , 2002, Nuclear medicine and biology.

[10]  R L Wahl,et al.  Current status of PET in breast cancer imaging, staging, and therapy. , 2001, Seminars in roentgenology.

[11]  J. Z. Zhu,et al.  The finite element method , 1977 .

[12]  D. Origgi,et al.  Magnetic resonance mammography in the evaluation of recurrence at the prior lumpectomy site after conservative surgery and radiotherapy , 2006, Breast Cancer Research.

[13]  M. Echenique,et al.  Evaluation of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Category 3 mammograms and the use of stereotactic vacuum‐assisted breast biopsy in a nonacademic community practice , 2004, Cancer.

[14]  I. Coman,et al.  MRI/PET nonrigid breast-image registration using skin fiducial markers. , 2006, Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics.

[15]  K. Scheidhauer,et al.  FDG PET and other imaging modalities in the primary diagnosis of suspicious breast lesions , 2004, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[16]  Patrick Clarysse,et al.  A review of cardiac image registration methods , 2002, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[17]  Mehmet Z. Unlu,et al.  Motion correction via nonrigid coregistration of dynamic MR mammography series , 2006, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[18]  S. Heiba,et al.  The Distinctive Role of Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in Breast Carcinoma with Brown Adipose Tissue 2‐Fluoro‐2‐Deoxy‐D‐Glucose Uptake , 2005, The breast journal.

[19]  E. Bombardieri,et al.  PET imaging in breast cancer. , 2001, The quarterly journal of nuclear medicine : official publication of the Italian Association of Nuclear Medicine (AIMN) [and] the International Association of Radiopharmacology.

[20]  T. Tong,et al.  Cancer statistics, 1994 , 1994, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[21]  Jean-Marc Constans,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging contrast-enhanced relaxometry of breast tumors: an MRI multicenter investigation concerning 100 patients. , 2004, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[22]  G P Liney,et al.  Differentiation of benign and malignant sub-1 cm breast lesions using dynamic contrast enhanced MRI. , 2004, Breast.