28 February 2012 Registration of T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MR images of the prostate: comparison between manual and landmark-based methods
Author Affiliations +
Abstract
Quantitative analysis of multi-parametric magnetic resonance (MR) images of the prostate, including T2-weighted (T2w) and diffusion-weighted (DW) images, requires accurate image registration. We compared two registration methods between T2w and DW images. We collected pre-operative MR images of 124 prostate cancer patients (68 patients scanned with a GE scanner and 56 with Philips scanners). A landmark-based rigid registration was done based on six prostate landmarks in both T2w and DW images identified by a radiologist. Independently, a researcher manually registered the same images. A radiologist visually evaluated the registration results by using a 5-point ordinal scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to determine whether the radiologist's ratings of the results of the two registration methods were significantly different. Results demonstrated that both methods were accurate: the average ratings were 4.2, 3.3, and 3.8 for GE, Philips, and all images, respectively, for the landmark-based method; and 4.6, 3.7, and 4.2, respectively, for the manual method. The manual registration results were more accurate than the landmark-based registration results (p < 0.0001 for GE, Philips, and all images). Therefore, the manual method produces more accurate registration between T2w and DW images than the landmark-based method.
© (2012) COPYRIGHT Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE). Downloading of the abstract is permitted for personal use only.
Yahui Peng, Yahui Peng, Yulei Jiang, Yulei Jiang, Fatma Nur Soylu, Fatma Nur Soylu, Mark Tomek, Mark Tomek, William Sensakovic, William Sensakovic, Aytekin Oto, Aytekin Oto, } "Registration of T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MR images of the prostate: comparison between manual and landmark-based methods", Proc. SPIE 8318, Medical Imaging 2012: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, 83181H (28 February 2012); doi: 10.1117/12.911637; https://doi.org/10.1117/12.911637
PROCEEDINGS
6 PAGES


SHARE
Back to Top