Feasibility of fusing three‐dimensional transabdominal and transrectal ultrasound images for comprehensive intraoperative visualization of gynecologic brachytherapy applicators
Authors: Rodgers Jessica Robin , Mendez Lucas C. , Hoover Douglas A. , Bax Jeffrey , D'Souza David , Fenster Aaron 
Published: August 2021

Purpose

In this study, we propose combining three‐dimensional (3D) transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) and 3D transabdominal ultrasound (TAUS) images of gynecologic brachytherapy applicators to leverage the advantages of each imaging perspective, providing a broader field‐of‐view and allowing previously obscured features to be recovered. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of fusing these 3D ultrasound (US) perspectives based on the applicator geometry in a phantom prior to clinical implementation.

Methods

In proof‐of‐concept experiments, 3D US images of application‐specific multimodality pelvic phantoms were acquired with tandem‐and‐ring and tandem‐and‐ovoids applicators using previously validated imaging systems. Two TRUS images were acquired at different insertion depths and manually fused based on the position of the ring/ovoids to broaden the TRUS field‐of‐view. The phantom design allowed “abdominal thickness” to be modified to represent different body habitus and TAUS images were acquired at three thicknesses for each applicator. The merged TRUS images were then combined with TAUS images by rigidly aligning applicator components and manually refining the registration using the positions of source channels and known tandem length, as well as the ring diameter for the tandem‐and‐ring applicator.

Combined 3D US images were manually, rigidly registered to images from a second modality (magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for the tandem‐and‐ring applicator and X‐ray computed tomography (CT) for the tandem‐and‐ovoids applicator (based on applicator compatibility)) to assess alignment. Four spherical fiducials were used to calculate target registration errors (TREs), providing a metric for validating registrations, where TREs were computed using root‐mean‐square distances to describe the alignment of manually identified corresponding fiducials. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to identify statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between the TREs for the three abdominal thicknesses for each applicator type. As an additional indicator of geometric accuracy, the bladder was segmented in the 3D US and corresponding MR/CT images, and volumetric differences and Dice similarity coefficients (DSCs) were calculated.

Results

For both applicator types, the combination of 3D TRUS with 3D TAUS images allowed image information obscured by the shadowing artifacts under single imaging perspectives to be recovered. For the tandem‐and‐ring applicator, the mean ± one standard deviation (SD) TREs from the images with increasing thicknesses were 1.37 ± 1.35 mm, 1.84 ± 1.22 mm, and 1.60 ± 1.00 mm. Similarly, for the tandem‐and‐ovoids applicator, the mean ± SD TREs from the images with increasing thicknesses were 1.37 ± 0.35 mm, 1.95 ± 0.90 mm, and 1.61 ± 0.76 mm. No statistically significant difference was detected in the TREs for the three thicknesses for either applicator type. The mean volume differences for the bladder segmentations were 3.14% and 2.33% and mean DSCs were 87.8% and 87.7% for the tandem‐and‐ring and tandem‐and‐ovoids applicators, respectively.

Conclusions

In this proof‐of‐concept study, we demonstrated the feasibility of fusing 3D TRUS and 3D TAUS images based on the geometry of tandem‐and‐ring and tandem‐and‐ovoids applicators. This represents a step toward an accessible and low‐cost 3D imaging method for gynecologic brachytherapy, with the potential to extend this approach to other intracavitary configurations and hybrid applicators.