Assessment of image registration accuracy in three‐dimensional transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy
Authors: Karnik V. V. , Fenster A. , Bax J. , Cool D. W. , Gardi L. , Gyacskov I. , Romagnoli C. , Ward A. D. 
Published: January 2010

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, , and 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 and for rigid and nonrigid techniques, respectively. Using image‐based rigid and nonrigid registration, the authors found mean TREs of and , respectively. Our FLE was 0.21 mm and did not dominate the overall TRE. However, segmentation variability contributed substantially to the TRE of the surface‐based techniques. PCA showed that the 95% confidence ellipsoid encompassing fiducial distances between the source and target registration images was reduced from 3.05 to , and 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.