Evaluation of intersession 3D-TRUS to 3D-TRUS image registration for repeat prostate biopsies.

PURPOSE: 3D-TRUS-guided prostate biopsy permits a 3D record of biopsy cores, supporting the planning of targets to resample or avoid during repeat biopsy sessions. Image registration is required in order to map biopsy targets planned on a previous session's 3D-TRUS image into the context of the current session. The authors evaluated the performance of surface- and intensity-based rigid and nonrigid registration algorithms for this task using a clinically motivated success criterion of a maximum 2.5 mm target registration error (TRE). METHODS: The authors collected two 3D-TRUS images for each of 13 patients, where each image was collected in a separate biopsy session, and the sessions were 1 week apart. The authors tested the iterative closest point and thin-plate spline surface-based registration methods, and the block matching and B-spline intensity-based methods. Manually marked intrinsic fiducials (calcifications) were used to calculate a TRE for each of the tested methods. In addition, error ellipsoids, anisotropy, and variability due to image segmentation were analyzed. All analysis was performed separately for the peripheral zone since this area harbors up to 80% of all prostate cancer. RESULTS: Only the intensity-based nonrigid registration method met the success criterion for both the whole gland and the peripheral zone. Segmentation was a substantial contributor to registration error variability for the surface-based methods, and the surface-based methods resulted in greater error volumes and anisotropy. CONCLUSIONS: Intensity-based rigid registration is clinically sufficient to register regions outside the peripheral zone, but nonrigid registration is required in order to register the peripheral zone with clinically needed accuracy. The clinical advantage of using nonrigid registration is questionable since the difference between the RMS TREs for rigid and nonrigid intensity-based registration could be considered to be small (0.3 mm) and is statistically significant. If the added clinical value in performing a nonrigid registration is insufficient given the additional time required for this computation, rigid registration alone may be suitable.

Assessment of image registration accuracy in three-dimensional transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy.

PURPOSE: Prostate biopsy, performed using two-dimensional (2D) transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guidance, is the clinical standard for a definitive diagnosis of prostate cancer. Histological analysis of the biopsies can reveal cancerous, noncancerous, or suspicious, possibly precancerous, tissue. During subsequent biopsy sessions, noncancerous regions should be avoided, and suspicious regions should be precisely rebiopsied, requiring accurate needle guidance. It is challenging to precisely guide a needle using 2D TRUS due to the limited anatomic information provided, and a three-dimensional (3D) record of biopsy locations for use in subsequent biopsy procedures cannot be collected. Our tracked, 3D TRUS-guided prostate biopsy system provides additional anatomic context and permits a 3D record of biopsies. However, targets determined based on a previous biopsy procedure must be transformed during the procedure to compensate for intraprocedure prostate shifting due to patient motion and prostate deformation due to transducer probe pressure. Thus, registration is a critically important step required to determine these transformations so that correspondence is maintained between the prebiopsied image and the real-time image. Registration must not only be performed accurately, but also quickly, since correction for prostate motion and deformation must be carried out during the biopsy procedure. The authors evaluated the accuracy, variability, and speed of several surface-based and image-based intrasession 3D-to-3D TRUS image registration techniques, for both rigid and nonrigid cases, to find the required transformations. METHODS: Our surface-based rigid and nonrigid registrations of the prostate were performed using the iterative-closest-point algorithm and a thin-plate spline algorithm, respectively. For image-based rigid registration, the authors used a block matching approach, and for nonrigid registration, the authors define the moving image deformation using a regular, 3D grid of B-spline control points. The authors measured the target registration error (TRE) as the postregistration misalignment of 60 manually marked, corresponding intrinsic fiducials. The authors also measured the fiducial localization error (FLE), the effect of segmentation variability, and the effect of fiducial distance from the transducer probe tip. Lastly, the authors performed 3D principal component analysis (PCA) on the x, y, and z components of the TREs to examine the 95% confidence ellipsoids describing the errors for each registration method. RESULTS: Using surface-based registration, the authors found mean TREs of 2.13 +/- 0.80 and 2.09 +/- 0.77 mm for rigid and nonrigid techniques, respectively. Using image-based rigid and non-rigid registration, the authors found mean TREs of 1.74 +/- 0.84 and 1.50 +/- 0.83 mm, respectively. Our FLE was 0.21 mm and did not dominate the overall TRE. However, segmentation variability contributed substantially approximately50%) to the TRE of the surface-based techniques. PCA showed that the 95% confidence ellipsoid encompassing fiducial distances between the source and target registra- tion images was reduced from 3.05 to 0.14 cm3, and 0.05 cm3 for the surface-based and image-based techniques, respectively. The run times for both registration methods were comparable at less than 60 s. CONCLUSIONS: Our results compare favorably with a clinical need for a TRE of less than 2.5 mm, and suggest that image-based registration is superior to surface-based registration for 3D TRUS-guided prostate biopsies, since it does not require segmentation.