Surface-based prostate registration with biomechanical regularization

Adding MR-derived information to standard transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) images for guiding prostate biopsy is of substantial clinical interest. A tumor visible on MR images can be projected on ultrasound by using MRUS registration. A common approach is to use surface-based registration. We hypothesize that biomechanical modeling will better control deformation inside the prostate than a regular surface-based registration method. We developed a novel method by extending a surface-based registration with finite element (FE) simulation to better predict internal deformation of the prostate. For each of six patients, a tetrahedral mesh was constructed from the manual prostate segmentation. Next, the internal prostate deformation was simulated using the derived radial surface displacement as boundary condition. The deformation field within the gland was calculated using the predicted FE node displacements and thin-plate spline interpolation. We tested our method on MR guided MR biopsy imaging data, as landmarks can easily be identified on MR images. For evaluation of the registration accuracy we used 45 anatomical landmarks located in all regions of the prostate. Our results show that the median target registration error of a surface-based registration with biomechanical regularization is 1.88 mm, which is significantly different from 2.61 mm without biomechanical regularization. We can conclude that biomechanical FE modeling has the potential to improve the accuracy of multimodal prostate registration when comparing it to regular surface-based registration.

[1]  M. Soloway,et al.  Trends in Gleason score: concordance between biopsy and prostatectomy over 15 years. , 2008, Urology.

[2]  Arjan Bel,et al.  Finite element based bladder modeling for image-guided radiotherapy of bladder cancer. , 2010, Medical physics.

[3]  H. Shinmoto,et al.  Prostate cancer screening: The clinical value of diffusion‐weighted imaging and dynamic MR imaging in combination with T2‐weighted imaging , 2007, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[4]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  Simulated required accuracy of image registration tools for targeting high-grade cancer components with prostate biopsies , 2013, European Radiology.

[5]  A. Fenster,et al.  Assessment of image registration accuracy in three-dimensional transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. , 2010, Medical physics.

[6]  Kemal Tuncali,et al.  Image registration for targeted MRI‐guided transperineal prostate biopsy , 2012, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[7]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  Prospective assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using 3-T diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies versus a systematic 10-core transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy cohort. , 2012, European urology.

[8]  Kazuro Sugimura,et al.  Prostate cancer detection with 3 T MRI: Comparison of diffusion‐weighted imaging and dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI in combination with T2‐weighted imaging , 2010, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[9]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging guided prostate biopsy in men with repeat negative biopsies and increased prostate specific antigen. , 2010, The Journal of urology.

[10]  Sheng Xu,et al.  Realtime TRUS/MRI Fusion Targeted-Biopsy for Prostate Cancer: A Clinical Demonstration of Increased Positive Biopsy Rates , 2010, Prostate Cancer Imaging.

[11]  Sébastien Ourselin,et al.  High-Speed Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis for Surgical Simulation Using Graphics Processing Units , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[12]  A. Jemal,et al.  Global Cancer Statistics , 2011 .

[13]  Jocelyne Troccaz,et al.  Prostate biopsy tracking with deformation estimation , 2011, Medical Image Anal..

[14]  David J. Hawkes,et al.  Modelling Prostate Motion for Data Fusion During Image-Guided Interventions , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[15]  Tsuyoshi Mitake,et al.  Real‐time Virtual Sonography for navigation during targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging data , 2010, International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association.

[16]  S. Fosså,et al.  Concordance between Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens: a population‐based study , 2009, BJU international.

[17]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  Three-Tesla magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy in men with increased prostate-specific antigen and repeated, negative, random, systematic, transrectal ultrasound biopsies: detection of clinically significant prostate cancers. , 2012, European urology.