Automatic coronary centerline tracking from coronary MRI
Arna van Engelen1, Markus Henningsson1, and Rene Botnar1

1Department of Biomedical Engineering, Division of Imaging Sciences and Biomedical Engineering, King's College London, London, United Kingdom

Synopsis

The aim of this study was to perform automatic coronary artery centerline tracking on coronary MRI data, in a clinically relevant population. Our method consisted of computation of a vesselness filter followed by fast marching. Parameters were optimized on three subjects, and performance was evaluated on 27 other subjects. Centrelines were traced between a start and end point, and when needed with one additional point in between. Tracking was successful in 92% (RCA), 88% (LAD) and 65% (LCX), with a median distance from manual annotation of 1.0mm. These results show that automatic centerline tracking on coronary MRI data is possible.

Purpose

Detecting coronary artery abnormalities is crucial in the management of coronary artery disease. Traditionally CT angiography (CTA) is the modality of choice to detect stenosis, however, acquisition and image quality of coronary MR angiography (CMRA) has improved considerably over the past years1,2,3. Image-based respiratory motion correction yields high-quality images by free-breathing, and allows accurate depiction of the coronary arteries and lumen narrowing stenosis4. For time-efficient analysis automatic centerline tracking is required. This has extensively been investigated in CTA5, but only before recent improvements in acquisition were made in CMRA6. The aim of this study was to perform automatic coronary artery centerline tracking on state-of-the-art CMRA data, in a clinically relevant population.

Methods

Data

Thirty patients with suspected coronary artery disease were included. CMRA images (acquired resolution 1.3 mm isotropic, reconstructed ~0.74x0.74x0.65 mm) were acquired as described in4. A 2D image navigator was generated by spatially encoding the startup echoes, and gating was achieved using a diminishing variance algorithm7. Clinical records indicated that 9 patients had single or multi-vessel disease based on previous CTA or X-ray imaging.

Centreline tracking

For reference manual centerlines were annotated on the three main coronary artery branches: right coronary artery (RCA), left anterior descending (LAD) and left circumflex (LCX). Occluded (3) and stented (2) arteries were excluded.

Automatic centerline extraction consisted of two steps: 1) vesselness computation and 2) fast marching. The vesselness filter8 has widely been used for vascular analysis in medical images. This filter enhances vessel-like structures by using the eigenvalues of the Hessian matrix, which is composed by local second order derivatives of the image8. The implementation of the vesselness filter involves several parameters that need to be optimized based on the target vessel and image type. Based on the expected size of coronary arteries we computed the Hessian matrix at three scales: 0.5, 1 and 1.5 mm, and for each voxel took the maximum vesselness response. The parameters α and β were used to balance between tube- and plane-like structures and the deviation from blob-like structures, and were optimized on a random selection of three patients (9 arteries). Combinations for α and β of 0.3, 0.5, 0.7 and 0.9 were evaluated. Centrelines were traced between the start and end point of each manually annotated centerline. The fast marching algorithm was used to compute a vesselness-based distance map with respect to the start of the centerline. Subsequently the shortest path from the end point to this start point was traced. The settings that yielded the smallest average centerline distance between the automatic and manual centerlines were used to analyse the arteries of the remaining 27 patients. All implementations were done in Matlab.

Evaluation

Results were visually assessed for correct tracing, and if errors were detected a second automatic tracing was performed using one additional point on the manual centerline in the area where the tracing went wrong. Secondly, centerline distances were evaluated. Both manual and automatic centerlines were resampled to a 0.1mm spacing. For each point on each automatic centerline the shortest distance to the manual centerline was determined. Lastly, the length of each manual centerline was determined, as well as the distance of this centerline that could be traced correctly automatically.

Results

The optimized parameters for vesselness computation were α=0.9 and β=0.3. Four examples of obtained vesselness images are shown in Figure 1. All (quantitative) results are provided in Figure 2. Examples of automatically traced centerlines are shown in Figures 3 and 4.

Discussion

Automatic centerline extraction from CMRA is possible in 74% of arteries in clinically relevant patients, increasing to 82% when one additional point on the centerline could be used. Lowest accuracy was found for LCX, which was mainly caused by wrong tracing through neighboring veins. However, generally, these results show promise for automatic coronary artery analysis on CMRA.

Conclusion

Automatic centerline extraction is possible from CMRA data. Future work will focus on automated stenosis detection.

Acknowledgements

This research has been supported by the EPSRC Technology Strategy Board (UK)

References

1. Henningsson et al., MRM 2012

2. Piccini et al., MRM 2012

3. Pang et al., MRM 2014

4. Henningsson et al., ISMRM, 2015

5. Schaap et al., Medical Image Analysis 2009

6. Wink et al., MRM 2002

7. Sachs et al., MRM 1995

8. Frangi et al., MICCAI 1998

Figures

Figure 1: Reformatted images of original CMRA (top) and corresponding vesselness images (bottom). Two healthy subjects (A, B), one patient with a normal LAD and occluded RCA (C, red arrow, excluded from study) and one patient with diffuse CAD in both RCA (red arrow) and LAD (yellow arrow) (D).

Figure 2: Evaluation measures: Success of tracking, centerline distance between manual and automatic tracing, and the centerline length (all results given as median [IQR])

Figure 3: Resulting automatically traced centerlines. A-C: correct centerlines, D: small error in LCX, E-F: wrong tracing in LCX that was corrected by adding one additional point (shown as black dot), G-H: wrong tracing of LCX (G) and both LCX and LAD (H) that was not corrected by adding an additional point.

Figure 4: Centerlines projected onto a MIP of a few slices of the original images (top row) and vesselness images (bottom row). Manual centerlines in red, automatic in yellow, and, when measured, the automatic centerline by using one extra point in blue.



Proc. Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med. 24 (2016)
2619