MRI to X-ray mammography registration using a volume-preserving affine transformation
Open accessAbstract
X-ray mammography is routinely used in national screening programmes and as a clinical diagnostic tool. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is commonly used as a complementary modality, providing functional information about the breast and a 3D image that can overcome ambiguities caused by the superimposition of fibro-glandular structures associated with X-ray imaging. Relating findings between these modalities is a challenging task however, due to the different imaging processes involved and the large deformation that the breast undergoes. In this work we present a registration method to determine spatial correspondence between pairs of MR and X-ray images of the breast, that is targeted for clinical use. We propose a generic registration framework which incorporates a volume-preserving affine transformation model and validate its performance using routinely acquired clinical data. Experiments on simulated mammograms from 8 volunteers produced a mean registration error of 3.8±1.6mm for a mean of 12 manually identified landmarks per volume. When validated using 57 lesions identified on routine clinical CC and MLO mammograms (n=113 registration tasks) from 49 subjects the median registration error was 13.1mm. When applied to the registration of an MR image to CC and MLO mammograms of a patient with a localisation clip, the mean error was 8.9mm. The results indicate that an intensity based registration algorithm, using a relatively simple transformation model, can provide radiologists with a clinically useful tool for breast cancer diagnosis.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Registration between breast MRI and X-ray mammography is feasible through a volume-preserving affine transformation model or gradient-based registration methods, reaching accuracy on the order of 10 mm.
“The registration between breast MRI and X-ray mammography has shown to be feasible through a properly defined volume-preserving affine transformation model (Mertzanidou et al. 2012) or through gradient-based registration methods (García et al. 2019). Both algorithms are able to reach registration accuracy in the order of 10mm.”
From Towards 2D/3D Registration of the Preoperative MRI to Intraoperative Fluoroscopic Images for Visualisation of Bone Defects (2023) · cites this paper as Mertzanidou et al. 2012
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- Gubern-Merida, A., Kallenberg, M., Marti, R., Karssemeijer, N., 2011. Fully automatic fibroglandular tissue segmentation in breast MRI: atlas-based approach, in: MICCAI Workshop on Breast Image Analysis, pp. 73-80.
- Hipwell, J., Tanner, C., Crum, W., Schnabel, J., Hawkes, D., 2007. A new validation method for X-ray mammogram registration algorithms using a projection model of breast X-ray compression. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 26, 1190-1200.
- Hopp, T., Baltzer, P., Dietzel, M., Kaiser, W., Ruiter, N., 2011. 2D/3D image fusion of X-ray mammograms with breast MRI: visualizing dynamic contrast enhancement in mammograms. International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, in press.
- van Leemput, K., Maes, F., Vandermeulen, D., Suetens, P., 1999. Automated model- based tissue classification of MR images of the brain. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 18, 897-908.
- Mertzanidou, T., Hipwell, J., Cardoso, M., Tanner, C., Ourselin, S., Hawkes, D., 2010a. X-ray mammography -MRI registration using a volume-preserving affine transformation and an EM-MRF for breast tissue classification, in: International Workshop on Digital Mammography, pp. 23-30.
- Mertzanidou, T., Hipwell, J., Tanner, C., Hawkes, D., 2010b. An intensity-based approach to X-ray mammography -MRI registration, in: Proceedings of SPIE Medical Imaging: Image Processing, pp. 7623-106.
- Robinson, D., Scrimger, J., 1991. Monoenergetic approximation of a polyenergetic beam -a theoretical approach. British Journal of Radiology 64, 452-454.
- Rueckert, D., Sonoda, L., Hayes, C., Hill, D., Leach, M., Hawkes, D., 1999. Nonrigid registration using free-form deformations: application to breast MR images. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 18, 712-721.
- Ruiter, N., Stotzka, R., Muller, T., Gemmeke, H., Reichenbach, J., Kaiser, W., 2006. Model-based registration of X-ray mammograms and mr images of the female breast. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 53, 204-211.
- Tanner, C., Hipwell, J., Hawkes, D., 2009. Using Statistical Deformation Models for the Registration of Multimodal Breast Images, in: Proceedings of SPIE Medical Imaging, pp. 72590P-72590P-9.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Identification of Breast Cancer Using Integrated Information from MRI and Mammography
Yang, S.-N., Li, F.-J., Liao, Y.-H., Chen, Y.-S., Shen, W.-C., & Huang, T.-C. (2015) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0128404 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Ku, P.-C., Martin-Gomez, A., Gao, C., Grupp, R., Mears, S. C., & Armand, M. (2023) · Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering: Imaging & Visualization · doi:10.1080/21681163.2022.2152375 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
“The registration between breast MRI and X-ray mammography has shown to be feasible through a properly defined volume-preserving affine transformation model (Mertzanidou et al. 2012) or through gradient-based registration methods (Garćıa et al.”
Method
- Authors
- Mertzanidou, T., Hipwell, J., Cardoso, M. J., Zhang, X., Tanner, C., Ourselin, S., Bick, U., Huisman, H., Karssemeijer, N., & Hawkes, D.
- Affiliations
- University College London (GB)
- ETH Zurich (CH)
- Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE)
- Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Mertzanidou, Thomy
- ORCID
- Venue
- Medical Image Analysis
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2012-07
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 966-975
- ISSN
- 1361-8415 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2096544141
- Cited by
- 24
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 4.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Medical Image Analysis (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0509-10143)
- University College London (EP/H046410/1)
- Radboud Universiteit
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/H046410, H046410, EP/H046410/1, EP/E031579/1)
- Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Digital Radiography and Breast Imaging
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Radiation › Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques
- Keywords
- breast cancer diagnosis, intensity-based registration, lesion localization, mammography, multimodal image registration, breast MRI
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Breast Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Mammography, Pattern Recognition, Automated, Sensitivity and Specificity, Subtraction Technique, Reproducibility of Results, Imaging, Three-Dimensional
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review