Cargando…

Comparison of Accuracies between Real-Time Nonrigid and Rigid Registration in the MRI–US Fusion Biopsy of the Prostate

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly important in the detection and localization of prostate cancer. Regarding suspicious lesions on MRI, a targeted biopsy using MRI fused with ultrasound (US) is widely used. To achieve a successful targeted biopsy, a precise registration between MRI and...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hwang, Sung Il, Ahn, Hyungwoo, Lee, Hak Jong, Hong, Sung Kyu, Byun, Seok-Soo, Lee, Sangchul, Choe, Gheeyoung, Park, Jun-Sung, Son, Yuri
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8392836/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34441415
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11081481
_version_ 1783743594974150656
author Hwang, Sung Il
Ahn, Hyungwoo
Lee, Hak Jong
Hong, Sung Kyu
Byun, Seok-Soo
Lee, Sangchul
Choe, Gheeyoung
Park, Jun-Sung
Son, Yuri
author_facet Hwang, Sung Il
Ahn, Hyungwoo
Lee, Hak Jong
Hong, Sung Kyu
Byun, Seok-Soo
Lee, Sangchul
Choe, Gheeyoung
Park, Jun-Sung
Son, Yuri
author_sort Hwang, Sung Il
collection PubMed
description Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly important in the detection and localization of prostate cancer. Regarding suspicious lesions on MRI, a targeted biopsy using MRI fused with ultrasound (US) is widely used. To achieve a successful targeted biopsy, a precise registration between MRI and US is essential. The purpose of our study was to show any decrease in errors using a real-time nonrigid registration technique for prostate biopsy. Nineteen patients with suspected prostate cancer were prospectively enrolled in this study. Registration accuracy was calculated by the measuring distance of corresponding points by rigid and nonrigid registration between MRI and US, and compared for rigid and nonrigid registration methods. Overall cancer detection rates were also evaluated by patient and by core. Prostate volume was measured automatically from MRI and manually from US, and compared to each other. Mean distances between the corresponding points in MRI and US were 5.32 ± 2.61 mm for rigid registration and 2.11 ± 1.37 mm for nonrigid registration (p < 0.05). Cancer was diagnosed in 11 of 19 patients (57.9%), and in 67 of 266 biopsy cores (25.2%). There was no significant difference in prostate-volume measurement between the automatic and manual methods (p = 0.89). In conclusion, nonrigid registration reduces targeting errors.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8392836
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83928362021-08-28 Comparison of Accuracies between Real-Time Nonrigid and Rigid Registration in the MRI–US Fusion Biopsy of the Prostate Hwang, Sung Il Ahn, Hyungwoo Lee, Hak Jong Hong, Sung Kyu Byun, Seok-Soo Lee, Sangchul Choe, Gheeyoung Park, Jun-Sung Son, Yuri Diagnostics (Basel) Article Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly important in the detection and localization of prostate cancer. Regarding suspicious lesions on MRI, a targeted biopsy using MRI fused with ultrasound (US) is widely used. To achieve a successful targeted biopsy, a precise registration between MRI and US is essential. The purpose of our study was to show any decrease in errors using a real-time nonrigid registration technique for prostate biopsy. Nineteen patients with suspected prostate cancer were prospectively enrolled in this study. Registration accuracy was calculated by the measuring distance of corresponding points by rigid and nonrigid registration between MRI and US, and compared for rigid and nonrigid registration methods. Overall cancer detection rates were also evaluated by patient and by core. Prostate volume was measured automatically from MRI and manually from US, and compared to each other. Mean distances between the corresponding points in MRI and US were 5.32 ± 2.61 mm for rigid registration and 2.11 ± 1.37 mm for nonrigid registration (p < 0.05). Cancer was diagnosed in 11 of 19 patients (57.9%), and in 67 of 266 biopsy cores (25.2%). There was no significant difference in prostate-volume measurement between the automatic and manual methods (p = 0.89). In conclusion, nonrigid registration reduces targeting errors. MDPI 2021-08-16 /pmc/articles/PMC8392836/ /pubmed/34441415 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11081481 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Hwang, Sung Il
Ahn, Hyungwoo
Lee, Hak Jong
Hong, Sung Kyu
Byun, Seok-Soo
Lee, Sangchul
Choe, Gheeyoung
Park, Jun-Sung
Son, Yuri
Comparison of Accuracies between Real-Time Nonrigid and Rigid Registration in the MRI–US Fusion Biopsy of the Prostate
title Comparison of Accuracies between Real-Time Nonrigid and Rigid Registration in the MRI–US Fusion Biopsy of the Prostate
title_full Comparison of Accuracies between Real-Time Nonrigid and Rigid Registration in the MRI–US Fusion Biopsy of the Prostate
title_fullStr Comparison of Accuracies between Real-Time Nonrigid and Rigid Registration in the MRI–US Fusion Biopsy of the Prostate
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Accuracies between Real-Time Nonrigid and Rigid Registration in the MRI–US Fusion Biopsy of the Prostate
title_short Comparison of Accuracies between Real-Time Nonrigid and Rigid Registration in the MRI–US Fusion Biopsy of the Prostate
title_sort comparison of accuracies between real-time nonrigid and rigid registration in the mri–us fusion biopsy of the prostate
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8392836/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34441415
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11081481
work_keys_str_mv AT hwangsungil comparisonofaccuraciesbetweenrealtimenonrigidandrigidregistrationinthemriusfusionbiopsyoftheprostate
AT ahnhyungwoo comparisonofaccuraciesbetweenrealtimenonrigidandrigidregistrationinthemriusfusionbiopsyoftheprostate
AT leehakjong comparisonofaccuraciesbetweenrealtimenonrigidandrigidregistrationinthemriusfusionbiopsyoftheprostate
AT hongsungkyu comparisonofaccuraciesbetweenrealtimenonrigidandrigidregistrationinthemriusfusionbiopsyoftheprostate
AT byunseoksoo comparisonofaccuraciesbetweenrealtimenonrigidandrigidregistrationinthemriusfusionbiopsyoftheprostate
AT leesangchul comparisonofaccuraciesbetweenrealtimenonrigidandrigidregistrationinthemriusfusionbiopsyoftheprostate
AT choegheeyoung comparisonofaccuraciesbetweenrealtimenonrigidandrigidregistrationinthemriusfusionbiopsyoftheprostate
AT parkjunsung comparisonofaccuraciesbetweenrealtimenonrigidandrigidregistrationinthemriusfusionbiopsyoftheprostate
AT sonyuri comparisonofaccuraciesbetweenrealtimenonrigidandrigidregistrationinthemriusfusionbiopsyoftheprostate