Fares OUADAHI1, Aurélie PETER1, Anaïs BERNARD1, and Julien ROUYER1
1Research and Innovation Department, Olea Medical, La Ciotat, France
Synopsis
Keywords: Breast, Data Processing, Registration, Motion correction
This work is part of an ongoing study to correct accidental breast motion
during dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging. Here, we explored a finite element method to generate “moving” images based on a “fixed” one. The proposed methodology can help in the constitution of realistic dataset with large variety of motion to support the development of a dedicated non-rigid registration model by deep learning.
Introduction and Context
Image registration is an active field
of research that focuses as much on fusion between different imaging modalities
as on motion correction between sequences phases in MRI, and as well on patient
follow-up. Registration process enables to merge spatially correlated
anatomical information into a single coordinate system. In this way, local
biomarkers can be estimated or/and compared among imaging techniques.
This preliminary work is part of
an ongoing study to correct accidental breast motion during dynamic
contrast-enhanced imaging (DCE-MRI). The recovery of spatial coherence between
DCE-MRI phases is crucial to estimate kinetics biomarkers. Indeed, the duration
of breast MRI exam is about 20 to 30 minutes depending on the sequences used (e.g.,
T1w, T2w, DWI, DCE). The DCE sequence ends the exam with a duration of about 5
to 8 minutes depending on the number of phases, and on the temporal step
between each phase. Such duration may induce postural discomfort and the breast
volume in each DCE-MRI phase is prone to motion, as illustrated in Fig.1.
Recent medical image registration
studies reported the benefits of deep learning strategies [1]–[3]. Deep learning registration methods offer
lower computation time and sufficient accuracy. Indeed, traditional image
registration methods [4], [5] are iterative-based procedures and can
have incompatible computation time with clinical practice. This is particularly
true for breast images when looking for non-rigid transformations on a large
field of view.
The counterpart of supervised
deep learning methods is the large amount of data required to achieve a robust
model. In other words, numerous pairs of “fixed” and “moving” images must be available
for the training. This abstract explores a finite element method (FEM) to
generate several “moving” images based on a “fixed” one, based on a realistic elastic
deformation of soft tissues to create a relevant dataset to train a non-rigid registration
model.Methods
Mechanical simulation
The simulation of the deformation
field must be as realistic as possible to obtain a registration model suitable
for clinical application. The development of a mechanical simulation was a
straightforward choice. Female breasts contain different types of soft tissues and makes it a particularly
deformable medium. Fat tissue, fibroglandular tissue and skin are considered to
be quasi-incompressible isotropic hyperelastic material, as described in [6]. The Neo-Hookean hyperelastic modelisation [7] has been implemented with the FEniCS toolkit [8].
Calculation domains
The
different mechanical behavior of the breast components implies knowledge of
their spatial extent in order to take this into account in modelling. Thus, three
main components were extracted from the DCE-MRI phase: fatty tissues, fibroglandular
tissues and the skin. Cooper's ligaments have been excluded because they are
not visible on the T1w image, even though their role in maintaining
fibroglandular tissues is indisputable.
Fibroglandular tissue extent was obtained using a
homemade deep learning segmentation model [9]. Overall Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) reached a median value of 0.917,
providing an appropriated confidence to estimate the fibroglandular domain, as
illustrated in Fig.2B.
Breast domain was also obtained using a homemade deep
learning model dedicated to breast and thorax segmentation (Fig.2A). The
median DSCs obtained with this model are 0.973 for the breast, and 0.963 for
the thorax, providing a high level of confidence. The fatty tissue domain was
defined by subtracting the breast domain from the fibroglandular domain.
The
skin domain was obtained by an erosion process of the breast segmentation area.
The skin thickness was taken to be 1.55 millimeters
for the whole breast, as reported on average in [10].
Breast motions
Patients are installed in MR
system in prone position with the breasts subjected to gravity. After numerous case
reviews, we assume the sternum and rib cage remain motionless in contact with
the examination table. Most of the observed motions (Fig.1) are related to the
mobilization of the shoulder joint. This leads to stretching or loosening of
the skin in the axilla and upper pectoral areas, causing an overall
displacement of the breast tissue. Different skin surface conformations to apply
the force are still being evaluated.Results
According to the described
method, the three breast components were obtained with deep learning models, as
shown in Fig.3A. These three domains are then meshed with a tetrahedral
geometry (Fig.3B).
A loosening of the skin was
modelled to illustrate a typical breast motion observable in DCE-MRI. A force was
defined with an orientation starting from the axilla to the nipple. The force surface
application was a rectangular tape-like shape placed in the axillary region and
following the shape of the breast. The tangential component of the force was
projected onto the defined skin surface. The finite element modelisation resulted
in a local estimation of the motion vector (i.e., displacement field) inside
the breast bulk (Fig.3C). The generation of the “moving” image was done by
applying of the resulting displacement field on the “fixed” image.Discussion and Conclusion
Presented results are still preliminary,
and some points need to be addressed. Particularly, some anatomical parts are
missing such as the pectoral muscle or the rib cage. However, the proposed
methodology can help in the constitution of realistic dataset with large
variety of motion to support the development of a dedicated non-rigid
registration model by deep learning.Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
[1] S. Bharati, M. Rubaiyat, H. Mondal, P. Podder, and V. B. S.
Prasath, “Deep Learning for Medical Image Registration: A Comprehensive
Review,” arXiv preprint, arXiv:2204:11341, 2022.
[2] G. Balakrishnan, A. Zhao, M. R. Sabuncu, J. Guttag, and A.
v. Dalca, “VoxelMorph: A Learning Framework for Deformable Medical Image
Registration,” IEEE Trans Med Imaging, vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 1788–1800,
2019.
[3] Y. Fu, Y. Lei, T. Wang, W. J. Curran, T. Liu, and X. Yang,
“Deep learning in medical image registration: a review,” Phys Med Biol,
vol. 65, no. 20, p. 20TR01, Oct. 2020.
[4] F. P. M. Oliveira and J. M. R. S. Tavares, “Medical image
registration: A review,” Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin, vol. 17,
no. 2, pp. 73–93, 2014.
[5] K. Marstal, F. Berendsen, M. Staring, and S. Klein,
“SimpleElastix: A User-Friendly, Multi-lingual Library for Medical Image Registration,”
IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
Workshops, pp. 574–582, Dec. 2016.
[6] G. Dufaye, A. Cherouat, J. M. Bachmann, and H. Borouchaki,
“Advanced finite element modelling for the prediction of 3D breast
deformation,” in European Journal of Computational Mechanics, vol. 22, no. 2–4, pp. 170–182, Aug. 2013
[7] P. A. L. S. Martins, R. M. Natal Jorge, and A. J. M.
Ferreira, “A Comparative Study of Several Material Models for Prediction of
Hyperelastic Properties: Application to Silicone-Rubber and Soft Tissues,” Strain,
vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 135–147, Aug. 2006.
[8] M. S. Alnaes et al., “The FEniCS Project Version
1.5,” Archive of Numerical Software, vol. 3, no. 100, pp. 9–23, 2015.
[9] F. Ouadahi, A. Bernard, L. Brun, and J. Rouyer, “Automatic
fibroglandular tissue segmentation in breast MRI using a deep learning
approach,” in in Proc. of International Society of Magnetic Resonance in
Medicine, 2022.
[10] A. Sutradhar and M. J. Miller, “In vivo measurement of breast
skin elasticity and breast skin thickness,” Skin Research and Technology,
vol. 19, no. 1, pp. e191–e199, Feb. 2013.