Cornel Zachiu1, Nicolas Papadakis2, Mario Ries1, Chrit Moonen1, and Baudouin Denis de Senneville1,2
1Imaging Division, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands, 2Institut de Mathématiques de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France
Synopsis
Current methods for real-time MR-guided HIFU and EBRT interventions in
moving organs rely on an algorithm that is sensitive to gray-level intensity
variations from other sources than motion. In this work, an improved real-time
tracking algorithm with increased robustness to such effects is proposed and experimentally
compared to the existing methods. Results have shown a notable improvement in
the quality of the motion estimates when the proposed method was used, while
maintaining real-time capabilities. Our method was shown to be potentially
beneficial for MR-guided HIFU and EBRT interventions in the abdomen, where cardiac
activity might become problematic for current approaches.Introduction
Magnetic
resonance (MR) guided high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) and external
beam radiotherapy (EBRT), show great potential for the non-invasive treatment
of tumors in abdominal organs. Therapeutic energy delivery delivery in such
areas is, however, hampered by the continuous displacement of the organs with
respiration
1,2. One way to overcome this problem is to combine high-frame-rate
MR-imaging with real-time image tracking for interventional guidance
1,3. Previous studies suggested for tracking
optical-flow based algorithms such as suggested by Horn&Schunck
4.
However, this approach is intrinsically also sensitive to gray-level intensity
variations from other sources than respiratory motion, such as in-flow
enhancement / pulsations due to the cardiac cycle, which frequently leads to
tracking errors.
In this work, an
improved real-time tracking algorithm with increased robustness versus such
effects is proposed and experimentally compared to the original Horn&Schunck
method in terms of quality of the motion estimate in the presence of arterial
pulsations.
Methods
The
original Horn&Schunck functional shown in equation [1] relies on a signal
intensity conservation term and a regularization term, which imposes a smooth
differentiable motion.
$$E_{HS}(u,v)=\iint\limits_{\Omega}\!{(I_{x}u+I_{y}v+I_t)^2+\alpha^2(\|\nabla u\|^2+\|\nabla v\|^2)dxdy}\qquad [1]$$
For motion tracking this functional has to be minimized in real-time for
each image of the data stream 1,3. Problematic are hereby intensity
variations due to arterial in-flow artifacts, which frequently violate the
intensity conservation and thus lead to mis-registration. As consequence, we
propose a modified L2-L1 functional (equation [2]), which replaces the
quadratic norm of the intensity conservation term by a linear norm:
$$E_{L2L1}(u,v)=\iint\limits_{\Omega}\!{|I_{x}u+I_{y}v+I_t|+\beta^2(\|\nabla u\|^2+\|\nabla v\|^2)dxdy}\qquad [2]$$
The
idea is that this functional reduces the confidence in the conservation of
signal intensity, relying more on the assumption of an elastic deformation.
This leads to a better representation of elastic organ deformation in the
vicinity of arterial signal fluctuations.
The experimental
validation was performed in the following way: Dynamic MR-imaging of both liver
and kidney (Gradient recalled EPI, TR=80 ms, TE=37 ms, bandwidthreadout=
1250 Hz, excitation angle=20o, resolution=2.5 × 2.5 × 7 mm3, frame-rate
12 images/s) was performed under free-breathing conditions (duration ∼2 min) on the abdomen
of two healthy volunteers, resulting in 1500 images for each volunteer. A
second dataset was derived by applying retrospective cardiac gating (i.e. while
respiratory motion is present, all images represent peak-systole) to serve as a
gold standard. Subsequently, the registration error (i.e. registration based on
the complete data vs. registration of the cardiac gated images) for both
methods is compared.
Results and Discussion
As shown in figure (1) the proposed tracking algorithm displays a
significantly better performance in the upper liver and in particular in the
vicinity of larger vessels, such as the hepatic arteries and the portal vein.
The robustness of the tracking performance was hereby found comparable to the
original algorithm. With respect to the performance, the L2-L1 algorithm
converged on average in 25 ms with a typical end-to-end processing latency
(since the beginning of the MR-slice acquisition to the output of the motion
fields) of under 100 ms. Both the convergence time and the latency are well
within the requirements for real-time guidance
1,3. Note that the
proposed functional is no longer differentiable thus, compared to the existing Horn&Schunck
approach, substantially more computationally intensive algorithms are required
for its minimization. This made an implementation that respects the
low-latencies required by real-time applications a particularly challenging
task.
Conclusion
The presented study proposes an improved MR-based real-time tracking method
for respiratory motion. Compared to the previously employed Horn&Schunck
algorithm, the proposed method is, by construction, more resilient to
gray-level intensity variations from other sources than motion. This was
experimentally proven in the current work for the particular case of in-flow
enhancement /pulsations due to the cardiac cycle. Additionally, the low
end-to-end processing latency renders our method potentially suitable for the real-time
MR-guidance of HIFU and EBRT interventions in the abdomen under free-breathing
conditions.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Dutch Technology Foundation (STW) (project OnTrack no. 12813) and in part by the European Research Council (project ERC-2010-AdG-20100317, Sound Pharma) and ITEA 2 (project SoRTS).References
1. Ries
M et al. Real-time 3D target-tracking in MRI-guided focused ultrasound
ablations in moving tissues, Mag Res Med 2010, 64:1704-12.
2. Langen K and Jones D. Organ motion and its management, Int J
Radiation Oncology Biol Phys 2001, 50: 265–278.
3. Roujol S et al. Real-time MR-thermometry and dosimetry for
interventional guidance on abdominal organs, Mag Res Med 2010, 63:1080-87.
4. Horn
B and Schunck B. Determining optical flow, Artificial Intelligence 1981, 17:
185 – 203.