Evaluation of five image registration tools for abdominal CT: pitfalls and opportunities with soft anatomy

Christopher P. Lee; Zhoubing Xu; Ryan P. Burke; Rebeccah Baucom; Benjamin K. Poulose; Richard G. Abramson; Bennett A. Landman

doi:10.1117/12.2081045

20 March 2015 Evaluation of five image registration tools for abdominal CT: pitfalls and opportunities with soft anatomy

Christopher P. Lee, Zhoubing Xu, Ryan P. Burke, Rebeccah Baucom, Benjamin K. Poulose, Richard G. Abramson, Bennett A. Landman

Author Affiliations +

Proceedings Volume 9413, Medical Imaging 2015: Image Processing; 94131N (2015) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2081045
Event: SPIE Medical Imaging, 2015, Orlando, Florida, United States

Abstract

Image registration has become an essential image processing technique to compare data across time and individuals. With the successes in volumetric brain registration, general-purpose software tools are beginning to be applied to abdominal computed tomography (CT) scans. Herein, we evaluate five current tools for registering clinically acquired abdominal CT scans. Twelve abdominal organs were labeled on a set of 20 atlases to enable assessment of correspondence. The 20 atlases were pairwise registered based on only intensity information with five registration tools (affine IRTK, FNIRT, Non-Rigid IRTK, NiftyReg, and ANTs). Following the brain literature, the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), mean surface distance, and Hausdorff distance were calculated on the registered organs individually. However, interpretation was confounded due to a significant proportion of outliers. Examining the retrospectively selected top 1 and 5 atlases for each target revealed that there was a substantive performance difference between methods. To further our understanding, we constructed majority vote segmentation with the top 5 DSC values for each organ and target. The results illustrated a median improvement of 85% in DSC between the raw results and majority vote. These experiments show that some images may be well registered to some targets using the available software tools, but there is significant room for improvement and reveals the need for innovation and research in the field of registration in abdominal CTs. If image registration is to be used for local interpretation of abdominal CT, great care must be taken to account for outliers (e.g., atlas selection in statistical fusion).

Citation Download Citation

Christopher P. Lee, Zhoubing Xu, Ryan P. Burke, Rebeccah Baucom, Benjamin K. Poulose, Richard G. Abramson, and Bennett A. Landman "Evaluation of five image registration tools for abdominal CT: pitfalls and opportunities with soft anatomy", Proc. SPIE 9413, Medical Imaging 2015: Image Processing, 94131N (20 March 2015); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2081045

ACCESS THE FULL ARTICLE

INSTITUTIONAL
Select your institution to access the SPIE Digital Library.

SELECT YOUR INSTITUTION

PERSONAL
Sign in with your SPIE account to access your personal subscriptions or to use specific features such as save to my library, sign up for alerts, save searches, etc.

PERSONAL SIGN IN

No SPIE Account? Create one

PURCHASE THIS CONTENT

SUBSCRIBE TO DIGITAL LIBRARY

50 downloads per 1-year subscription

Members: $195

Non-members: $335 ADD TO CART

25 downloads per 1 - year subscription

Members: $145

Non-members: $250 ADD TO CART

PURCHASE SINGLE ARTICLE

Includes PDF, HTML & Video, when available