Publications by Year: 2019

Sharon Peled, Mark Vangel, Ron Kikinis, Clare M Tempany, Fiona M Fennessy, and Andrey Fedorov. 2019. “Selection of Fitting Model and Arterial Input Function for Repeatability in Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Prostate MRI.” Acad Radiol, 26, 9, Pp. e241-e251.Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging is notable for the variability of calculated parameters. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the level of measurement variability and error/variability due to modeling in DCE magnetic resonance imaging parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two prostate DCE scans were performed on 11 treatment-naïve patients with suspected or confirmed prostate peripheral zone cancer within an interval of less than two weeks. Tumor-suspicious and normal-appearing regions of interest (ROI) in the prostate peripheral zone were segmented. Different Tofts-Kety based models and different arterial input functions, with and without bolus arrival time (BAT) correction, were used to extract pharmacokinetic parameters. The percent repeatability coefficient (%RC) of fitted model parameters K, v, and k was calculated. Paired t-tests comparing parameters in tumor-suspicious ROIs and in normal-appearing tissue evaluated each parameter's sensitivity to pathology. RESULTS: Although goodness-of-fit criteria favored the four-parameter extended Tofts-Kety model with the BAT correction included, the simplest two-parameter Tofts-Kety model overall yielded the best repeatability scores. The best %RC in the tumor-suspicious ROI was 63% for k, 28% for v and 83% for K . The best p values for discrimination between tissues were p <10 for k and K, and p = 0.11 for v. Addition of the BAT correction to the models did not improve repeatability. CONCLUSION: The parameter k, using an arterial input functions directly measured from blood signals, was more repeatable than K. Both K and k values were highly discriminatory between healthy and diseased tissues in all cases. The parameter v had high repeatability but could not distinguish the two tissue types.
Hugo J Kuijf, Adria Casamitjana, Louis D Collins, Mahsa Dadar, Achilleas Georgiou, Mohsen Ghafoorian, Dakai Jin, April Khademi, Jesse Knight, Hongwei Li, Xavier Llado, Matthijs J Biesbroek, Miguel Luna, Qaiser Mahmood, Richard McKinley, Alireza Mehrtash, Sebastien Ourselin, Bo-Yong Park, Hyunjin Park, Sang Hyun Park, Simon Pezold, Elodie Puybareau, Jeroen De Bresser, Leticia Rittner, Carole H Sudre, Sergi Valverde, Veronica Vilaplana, Roland Wiest, Yongchao Xu, Ziyue Xu, Guodong Zeng, Jianguo Zhang, Guoyan Zheng, Rutger Heinen, Christopher Chen, Wiesje van der Flier, Frederik Barkhof, Max A Viergever, Geert Jan Biessels, Simon Andermatt, Mariana Bento, Matt Berseth, Mikhail Belyaev, and Jorge M Cardoso. 2019. “Standardized Assessment of Automatic Segmentation of White Matter Hyperintensities and Results of the WMH Segmentation Challenge.” IEEE Trans Med Imaging, 38, 11, Pp. 2556-68.Abstract
Quantification of cerebral white matter hyperintensities (WMH) of presumed vascular origin is of key importance in many neurological research studies. Currently, measurements are often still obtained from manual segmentations on brain MR images, which is a laborious procedure. The automatic WMH segmentation methods exist, but a standardized comparison of the performance of such methods is lacking. We organized a scientific challenge, in which developers could evaluate their methods on a standardized multi-center/-scanner image dataset, giving an objective comparison: the WMH Segmentation Challenge. Sixty T1 + FLAIR images from three MR scanners were released with the manual WMH segmentations for training. A test set of 110 images from five MR scanners was used for evaluation. The segmentation methods had to be containerized and submitted to the challenge organizers. Five evaluation metrics were used to rank the methods: 1) Dice similarity coefficient; 2) modified Hausdorff distance (95th percentile); 3) absolute log-transformed volume difference; 4) sensitivity for detecting individual lesions; and 5) F1-score for individual lesions. In addition, the methods were ranked on their inter-scanner robustness; 20 participants submitted their methods for evaluation. This paper provides a detailed analysis of the results. In brief, there is a cluster of four methods that rank significantly better than the other methods, with one clear winner. The inter-scanner robustness ranking shows that not all the methods generalize to unseen scanners. The challenge remains open for future submissions and provides a public platform for method evaluation.
Niravkumar A Patel, Gang Li, Weijian Shang, Marek Wartenberg, Tamas Heffter, Everette C Burdette, Iulian Iordachita, Junichi Tokuda, Nobuhiko Hata, Clare M Tempany, and Gregory S Fischer. 2019. “System Integration and Preliminary Clinical Evaluation of a Robotic System for MRI-Guided Transperineal Prostate Biopsy.” J Med Robot Res, 4, 2.Abstract
This paper presents the development, preclinical evaluation, and preliminary clinical study of a robotic system for targeted transperineal prostate biopsy under direct interventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) guidance. The clinically integrated robotic system is developed based on a modular design approach, comprised of surgical navigation application, robot control software, MRI robot controller hardware, and robotic needle placement manipulator. The system provides enabling technologies for MRI-guided procedures. It can be easily transported and setup for supporting the clinical workflow of interventional procedures, and the system is readily extensible and reconfigurable to other clinical applications. Preclinical evaluation of the system is performed with phantom studies in a 3 Tesla MRI scanner, rehearsing the proposed clinical workflow, and demonstrating an in-plane targeting error of 1.5mm. The robotic system has been approved by the institutional review board (IRB) for clinical trials. A preliminary clinical study is conducted with the patient consent, demonstrating the targeting errors at two biopsy target sites to be 4.0 and 3.7, which is sufficient to target a clinically significant tumor foci. First-in-human trials to evaluate the system's effectiveness and accuracy for MR image-guide prostate biopsy are underway.
Ananya Panda, Gregory OʼConnor, Wei Ching Lo, Yun Jiang, Seunghee Margevicius, Mark Schluchter, Lee E Ponsky, and Vikas Gulani. 2019. “Targeted Biopsy Validation of Peripheral Zone Prostate Cancer Characterization With Magnetic Resonance Fingerprinting and Diffusion Mapping.” Invest Radiol, 54, 8, Pp. 485-93.Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aims for targeted biopsy validation of magnetic resonance fingerprinting (MRF) and diffusion mapping for characterizing peripheral zone (PZ) prostate cancer and noncancers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred four PZ lesions in 85 patients who underwent magnetic resonance imaging were retrospectively analyzed with apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) mapping, MRF, and targeted biopsy (cognitive or in-gantry). A radiologist blinded to pathology drew regions of interest on targeted lesions and visually normal peripheral zone on MRF and ADC maps. Mean T1, T2, and ADC were analyzed using linear mixed models. Generalized estimating equations logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate T1 and T2 relaxometry combined with ADC in differentiating pathologic groups. RESULTS: Targeted biopsy revealed 63 cancers (low-grade cancer/Gleason score 6 = 10, clinically significant cancer/Gleason score ≥7 = 53), 15 prostatitis, and 26 negative biopsies. Prostate cancer T1, T2, and ADC (mean ± SD, 1660 ± 270 milliseconds, 56 ± 20 milliseconds, 0.70 × 10 ± 0.24 × 10 mm/s) were significantly lower than prostatitis (mean ± SD, 1730 ± 350 milliseconds, 77 ± 36 milliseconds, 1.00 × 10 ± 0.30 × 10 mm/s) and negative biopsies (mean ± SD, 1810 ± 250 milliseconds, 71 ± 37 milliseconds, 1.00 × 10 ± 0.33 × 10 mm/s). For cancer versus prostatitis, ADC was sensitive and T2 specific with comparable area under curve (AUC; (AUCT2 = 0.71, AUCADC = 0.79, difference between AUCs not significant P = 0.37). T1 + ADC (AUCT1 + ADC = 0.83) provided the best separation between cancer and negative biopsies. Low-grade cancer T2 and ADC (mean ± SD, 75 ± 29 milliseconds, 0.96 × 10 ± 0.34 × 10 mm/s) were significantly higher than clinically significant cancers (mean ± SD, 52 ± 16 milliseconds, 0.65 ± 0.18 × 10 mm/s), and T2 + ADC (AUCT2 + ADC = 0.91) provided the best separation. CONCLUSIONS: T1 and T2 relaxometry combined with ADC mapping may be useful for quantitative characterization of prostate cancer grades and differentiating cancer from noncancers for PZ lesions seen on T2-weighted images.
Fan Zhang, Ye Wu, Isaiah Norton, Yogesh Rathi, Alexandra J Golby, and Lauren J O'Donnell. 2019. “Test-retest Reproducibility of White Matter Parcellation using Diffusion MRI Tractography Fiber Clustering.” Hum Brain Mapp, 40, 10, Pp. 3041-57.Abstract
There are two popular approaches for automated white matter parcellation using diffusion MRI tractography, including fiber clustering strategies that group white matter fibers according to their geometric trajectories and cortical-parcellation-based strategies that focus on the structural connectivity among different brain regions of interest. While multiple studies have assessed test-retest reproducibility of automated white matter parcellations using cortical-parcellation-based strategies, there are no existing studies of test-retest reproducibility of fiber clustering parcellation. In this work, we perform what we believe is the first study of fiber clustering white matter parcellation test-retest reproducibility. The assessment is performed on three test-retest diffusion MRI datasets including a total of 255 subjects across genders, a broad age range (5-82 years), health conditions (autism, Parkinson's disease and healthy subjects), and imaging acquisition protocols (three different sites). A comprehensive evaluation is conducted for a fiber clustering method that leverages an anatomically curated fiber clustering white matter atlas, with comparison to a popular cortical-parcellation-based method. The two methods are compared for the two main white matter parcellation applications of dividing the entire white matter into parcels (i.e., whole brain white matter parcellation) and identifying particular anatomical fiber tracts (i.e., anatomical fiber tract parcellation). Test-retest reproducibility is measured using both geometric and diffusion features, including volumetric overlap (wDice) and relative difference of fractional anisotropy. Our experimental results in general indicate that the fiber clustering method produced more reproducible white matter parcellations than the cortical-parcellation-based method.
Bojan Kocev, Horst Karl Hahn, Lars Linsen, William M Wells, and Ron Kikinis. 2019. “Uncertainty-aware Asynchronous Scattered Motion Interpolation using Gaussian Process Regression.” Comput Med Imaging Graph, 72, Pp. 1-12.Abstract
We address the problem of interpolating randomly non-uniformly spatiotemporally scattered uncertain motion measurements, which arises in the context of soft tissue motion estimation. Soft tissue motion estimation is of great interest in the field of image-guided soft-tissue intervention and surgery navigation, because it enables the registration of pre-interventional/pre-operative navigation information on deformable soft-tissue organs. To formally define the measurements as spatiotemporally scattered motion signal samples, we propose a novel motion field representation. To perform the interpolation of the motion measurements in an uncertainty-aware optimal unbiased fashion, we devise a novel Gaussian process (GP) regression model with a non-constant-mean prior and an anisotropic covariance function and show through an extensive evaluation that it outperforms the state-of-the-art GP models that have been deployed previously for similar tasks. The employment of GP regression enables the quantification of uncertainty in the interpolation result, which would allow the amount of uncertainty present in the registered navigation information governing the decisions of the surgeon or intervention specialist to be conveyed.
Edwin JR van Beek, Christiane Kuhl, Yoshimi Anzai, Patricia Desmond, Richard L Ehman, Qiyong Gong, Garry Gold, Vikas Gulani, Margaret Hall-Craggs, Tim Leiner, Tschoyoson CC Lim, James G Pipe, Scott Reeder, Caroline Reinhold, Marion Smits, Daniel K Sodickson, Clare Tempany, Alberto H Vargas, and Meiyun Wang. 2019. “Value of MRI in Medicine: More Than Just Another Test?” J Magn Reson Imaging, 49, 7, Pp. e14-e25.Abstract
There is increasing scrutiny from healthcare organizations towards the utility and associated costs of imaging. MRI has traditionally been used as a high-end modality, and although shown extremely important for many types of clinical scenarios, it has been suggested as too expensive by some. This editorial will try and explain how value should be addressed and gives some insights and practical examples of how value of MRI can be increased. It requires a global effort to increase accessibility, value for money, and impact on patient management. We hope this editorial sheds some light and gives some indications of where the field may wish to address some of its research to proactively demonstrate the value of MRI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5 Technical Efficacy: Stage 5 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018.
Beek JMRI 2018