Automated registration of diagnostic to prediagnostic x-ray mammograms: evaluation and comparison to radiologists' accuracy.
Automated registration of diagnostic to prediagnostic x-ray mammograms: evaluation and comparison to radiologists' accuracy.
复制标题
诊断到诊断前 X 射线乳房 X 射线照片的自动注册：与放射科医生准确性的评估和比较。
DOI：
10.1118/1.3457470
复制
发表时间：
2010
期刊：
影响因子：
3.8
通讯作者：
Pinto Pereira SM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Pinto Pereira SM
PurposeTo compare and evaluate intensity-based registration methods for computation of serial x射线mammography correspondence.MethodsX射线mammography was simulated from MRI of 20 women using finite element method for modeling breast compressions and employing a MRI/x射线appearance change model.优化了三种配准方法（仿射、流体和自由变形（FFD））的参数配置，用于在这些模拟图像上配准X射线乳腺摄影。5名乳腺X线摄影阅片员在52例乳腺癌病例的诊断和相应的诊断前数字化图像上独立识别标志（肿瘤，乳头，通常还有其他两个正常特征）。由每位阅片人独立重新识别标志。计算目标配准误差，以使用读片员标志作为金标准来比较三种配准方法。结果阅片者之间的变异性因标志和屏幕而异，诊断/诊断前图像上点位置的阅片者之间的平均距离（mm）为2.50（95% CI 1.95，3.15）/2.84（2.24，3.55）（乳头）和4.26（3.43，5.24）/4.76（3.85，5.84）（肿瘤）。配准精度对标志的类型和乳腺密度的量敏感。对于致密乳腺，仿射和流体方法优于FFD。对于密度较低的乳房，仿射配准优于流体和FFD。平均精度（mm）的仿射注册之间变化3.16（95%CI 2.56，3.90）乳头点的乳房密度为20%-39%和5.73（4.80，6.84）的肿瘤点的乳房与density .ConclusionsAffine注册的准确性是可比的独立的电影读者之间。与仿射配准相比，更先进的二维非刚性配准算法无法提高图像对齐的准确性。
PurposeTo compare and evaluate intensity‐based registration methods for computation of serial x‐ray mammogram correspondence.MethodsX‐ray mammograms were simulated from MRIs of 20 women using finite element methods for modeling breast compressions and employing a MRI/x‐ray appearance change model. The parameter configurations of three registration methods, affine, fluid, and free‐form deformation (FFD), were optimized for registering x‐ray mammograms on these simulated images. Five mammography film readers independently identified landmarks (tumor, nipple, and usually two other normal features) on pairs of diagnostic and corresponding prediagnostic digitized images from 52 breast cancer cases. Landmarks were independently reidentified by each reader. Target registration errors were calculated to compare the three registration methods using the reader landmarks as a gold standard. Data were analyzed using multilevel methods.ResultsBetween‐reader variability varied with landmark and screen , with between‐reader mean distance (mm) in point location on the diagnostic/prediagnostic images of 2.50 (95% CI 1.95, 3.15)/2.84 (2.24, 3.55) for nipples and 4.26 (3.43, 5.24)/4.76 (3.85, 5.84) for tumors. Registration accuracy was sensitive to the type of landmark and the amount of breast density. For dense breasts , the affine and fluid methods outperformed FFD. For breasts with lower density, the affine registration surpassed both fluid and FFD. Mean accuracy (mm) of the affine registration varied between 3.16 (95% CI 2.56, 3.90) for nipple points in breasts with density 20%–39% and 5.73 (4.80, 6.84) for tumor points in breasts with density .ConclusionsAffine registration accuracy was comparable to that between independent film readers. More advanced two‐dimensional nonrigid registration algorithms were incapable of increasing the accuracy of image alignment when compared to affine registration.