Abstract
A simple and computationally efficient algorithm for performing unbiased groupwise registration to correct motion in a dataset of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance (DCE-MR) images is presented. All the DCE-MR images in the sequence are registered simultaneously and updates to the reference are computed using an averaging technique that takes into account all the transformations aligning each image to the current reference. The method is validated both subjectively and quantitatively using an abdominal DCE-MRI dataset. When combined with the normalized gradient field dissimilarity measure, it produced promising results and showed significant improvements compared to those obtained from an existing motion correction approach.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download conference paper PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
1 Introduction
Over the last years, dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) has been a useful clinical technique in the characterization of tumor biology. It involves the acquisition of a sequence of images acquired pre- and post-injection of a bolus of a contrast agent. The uptake of the contrast agent from this sequence of images can be quantified via a concentration vs. time curve, which in turn allows us to characterize vascular permeability [13].
DCE-MRI continues to be a crucial component in identifying appropriate patient treatment response. However, motion present in the dataset has to first be compensated to accurately convert signal intensity changes to contrast agent concentrations [7]. Image registration has been demonstrated to be effective in obtaining a motionless dataset from a sequence of DCE-MR images [1, 2, 6, 8].
Some registration methods for DCE images include reducing motion in the dataset through a floating image reference scheme combined with principal component analysis, as presented in [7]. In their paper, an intensity correction term was added to the similarity measure for pairwise registration. In [12], the registration problem was divided into sub-problems using auxiliary images computed from the conditional probability distribution of image pairs. These auxiliary images were registered to the original images using the sum of squared differences.
We introduce a groupwise registration approach combined with an NGF-based pairwise step for correcting motion and subsequently validate the proposed scheme on a set of abdominal dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images. The groupwise framework used in this paper assumes equal weight for all pairwise transformations to come up with an update to the reference image. It effectively reduces naturally occurring motion induced by the respiration process and is able to align images in spite of the changes in contrast.
2 Pairwise Registration
Constructing a motion-corrected dataset through groupwise registration entails aligning the subjects to the same reference geometry. In this paper, we used a combination of affine and elastic (also referred to as “non-parametric registration"in [9]) to initialize each groupwise iteration.
2.1 Mathematical Model
Given a template and a reference image \(\mathcal {T},\mathcal {R}:\varOmega \subset \mathbb {R}^2 \rightarrow \mathbb {R}\), we wish to find a transformation \(y: \varOmega \rightarrow \mathbb {R}^2\) such that a transformed version \(\mathcal {T}\left[ y\right] \) of the template image \(\mathcal {T}\) is similar to the reference \(\mathcal {R}\). This is equivalent to the optimization problem
The term \(\mathcal {D}\) in the joint functional \(\mathcal {J}\) is called a distance measure and it quantifies the similarity between the transformed template and the reference image. The second term \(\mathcal {S}\) is the regularization term, which makes the registration problem well-posed.
In our implementations, we have tested the following distance measures:
-
a.
Normalized Gradient Field (NGF)
$$\begin{aligned} \mathcal {D}^\text {NGF}\left[ \mathcal {T},\mathcal {R}\right] = \text {NGF}\left[ \mathcal {T},\mathcal {R}\right] = \displaystyle \int _\varOmega 1 - \left( \text {NGF}\left[ \mathcal {T}(x)\right] ^T\text {NGF}\left[ \mathcal {R}(x)\right] \right) ^2 dx \end{aligned}$$(2)where \(\text {NGF}\left[ \mathcal {T}\right] \) denotes the normalized gradient field of \(\mathcal {T}\), defined by
$$\begin{aligned} \text {NGF}\left[ \mathcal {T}\right] = \text {NGF}\left[ \mathcal {T},\eta \right] = \dfrac{\nabla \mathcal {T}}{\sqrt{\left| \nabla \mathcal {T}\right| ^2 + \eta ^2}} \end{aligned}$$and \(\eta \) is an edge parameter. The NGF is suited for aligning images where intensity changes appear at corresponding positions. These intensity changes are given by the image gradient \(\nabla \mathcal {T}.\)
-
b.
Sum of Squared Differences with Intensity Correction (SSDIC)
In [7], intensity correction was used in combination with the SSD to partially account for intensity changes between image volumes. Instead of solving for a reasonable transformation aligning \(\mathcal {T}\) and \(\mathcal {R}\), we find one that matches the “intensity-corrected" template \(T^c\) to the reference, where
$$\begin{aligned} \mathcal {T}^c = \mathcal {T} + c, \ \ \ \ c = (\mathcal {R} - \mathcal {T})*\text {N}\left( 0,\sigma \right) , \end{aligned}$$and \(\text {N}\left( 0,\sigma \right) \) is a Gaussian kernel with a mean and standard deviation of 0 and \(\sigma \), respectively. The template image is transformed using the optimal deformation aligning the intensity-corrected template to the reference image.
The above distance measures are approximated using a midpoint quadrature rule on a cell-centered grid with uniform mesh spacing.
2.2 Multilevel Affine and Elastic Registration
The discretized form of the registration problem in (1) is solved from the coarsest to the finest level. We perform an affine registration at the coarsest level and use the resulting optimal transformation to initialize \(y^{\text {ref}}\) in the regularization term \(\mathcal {S}[y]\), which is given by the elastic potential of the transformation y [9]:
The starting guess for the optimal transformation at every succeeding level is taken to be the prolongated version of the solution \(y^h\) from the preceding level.
3 Groupwise Registration
Groupwise registration has been used in a wide range of applications, including normalizing structural and functional MR data [3]. In [5], the performance of a groupwise registration method with a principal component analysis-based metric for correcting motion in DCE-MR images of the liver was evaluated.
Here, we adopt the method used in [4, 11] to correct motion in a sequence of DCE-MR images and coupled it with the pairwise registration step discussed in the previous section.
Each groupwise iteration is initialized by mapping every image in the dataset to the current reference image. The reference image is then updated using an averaging technique that takes into account all the transformations obtained from the pairwise registration step. The update to the reference is given by
where
-
N refers to the size of the dataset,
-
\(\text {x}^h\) is the original grid,
-
\(\mathcal {T}_i\) are the DCE-MR images (\(i = 1,2,\ldots ,N\)),
-
\(y_i^n\) is the mapping that aligns the \(i^\text {th}\) image in the sequence to the \(n^\text {th}\) reference image,
-
\(y_{\text {mean}}^{n}\) is the mean of the transformations \(y_i^n\) at the \(n^\text {th}\) iteration, and
-
\(y_i^n\circ \left[ y_{\text {mean}}^{n}\right] ^{-1}\) is the composition of \(y_i^n\) with the inverse of \(y_{\text {mean}}^{n}\).
Performing the update process described in (3) leads to an average geometry \(\mathcal {R}_\text {mean}\) and a collection of transformations aligning the subjects to \(\mathcal {R}_\text {mean}\).
In our implementations, we used the following approximation for the inverse of the average transformation field \(y_{\text {mean}}^{n}\):
A detailed outline of the groupwise registration framework is given in our previous work [10].
4 Experiments and Results
A sequence of abdominal MR images was used for validation. The scans were acquired with a T1-weighted FSPGR sequence. Spatial resolution was 1.88 mm by 1.88 mm by 8 mm in the S/I, L/R, and A/P directions respectively. Temporal resolution was approximately 3.7 seconds per volume [7].
We applied the proposed groupwise algorithm to visually assess how well it eliminates real and complex patient motion. For quantitative validation, the groupwise scheme was applied to a dataset with simulated motion. The resulting sequence of registered images is then compared against the ground truth (the motionless dataset). For experiments that made use of the SSDIC metric, the standard deviation was chosen heuristically to be \(\sigma = 2.7\).
4.1 Real Patient Motion
Every groupwise iteration was initialized by a pairwise alignment of the subjects to the current reference geometry. In Fig. 1, we demonstrate how using different distance measures can affect the overall efficiency of the proposed method. Figures 1(f) and (i) show the optimal transformations that register Fig. 1(b) to (a) obtained using the NGF and SSDIC. Figures 1(d) and (g) show the transformed versions of the template image. Observe that the NGF and SSDIC were able to align corresponding features correctly, with only slight misregistrations near the borders from using SSDIC. We also quantified the efficiency of the distance measure by computing the difference between the transformed template and the reference image. Ideally, if registration were done properly, this difference should only exhibit the regions with contrast differences. This was the case with the NGF and the SSDIC, as demonstrated in Figs. 1(e) and (h).
Next, we present results obtained from separate experiments using two significantly different initial reference images (one before and one after the contrast agent had been absorbed) in order to demonstrate that the proposed method for correcting motion in DCE-MR datasets is indeed unbiased regardless of the chosen initial reference. Figures 2(a) and (d) show the two initial reference images used. Next to the reference images are the final mean images computed using the NGF and SSDIC, respectively. Notice that the groupwise scheme converged to the same final average image when the same distance measure was used. For instance, the final mean images Fig. 2(b) and (e) are the same in spite of “evolving” from different initial references.
In Fig. 3, we show the rate of convergence of the groupwise scheme by plotting the average change in pixel values between successive iterates for the reference image against the iteration number. After around seven iterations, the average change in intensity values dropped from approximately 0.08 to 0.005, where the intensity values of the images in the dataset lie in the interval [0,1].
4.2 Simulated Motion
Simulated motion was added to a motionless dataset similar to [7]. Non-rigid diaphragm motion during respiration combined with rigid rotations at point x during time t was modelled by
In the above equation, \(\varDelta SI_\text {max}\) is the maximum SI displacement, \(x_\text {max}\) is the maximum LR extent of the patient, and \(t_b\) is the duration of a full breath.
Signal Intensity Curves as Measures of Accuracy. We present statistics on the signal intensity (SI) versus time curves over small regions of interest (ROIs). The ROIs considered are regions with relatively large motion shifts that are also affected by the administration of the contrast agent. They are shown in Fig. 4. SI curves give us an idea of how well the registration corrects motion in the dataset. Without motion, these curves would be smooth. However, naturally occurring motion present in our dataset introduced changes unrelated to the uptake of the contrast agent.
In Fig. 5, we display the SI curves after performing pairwise (PW) registration and groupwise (GW) registration for the NGF and SSDIC. All 4 methods were able to mitigate the effects of diaphragm motion and contrast change as demonstrated by smaller peaks in their SI curves compared to that from the simulated data. However, it is important to note the persistence of high fluctuations after using the SSDIC with either a pairwise or groupwise approach. This signifies misregistration in the specified region of interest. On the other hand, we obtained relatively smoother curves for the same ROIs after combining groupwise registration with NGF. See Figs. 5(b), (d).
We measured the mean-squared error for each curve to quantify how close our final registered images are to the ground truth. Out of all the methods we implemented, GW-NGF had the smallest mean-squared error. In some cases, it even resulted to a ten-fold improvement in the MSE compared with the other methods.
The standard deviation was also calculated to quantify the amount of motion in the registered images. Again, the GW-NGF yielded the best results, implying that there were smaller fluctuations in the SI curves and less misregistrations in the ROIs considered. On the other hand, using the SSDIC with the groupwise scheme was either a hit or miss. Notice from the convergence of the method visualized in Fig. 3 that the final average change in pixel values fluctuated close to the initial average change in intensity values. This could suggest that the final reference image might be similar to the initial reference and that some of the motion correction made in the previous iterations were cancelled out.
Target Registration Errors as Measures of Accuracy. Target registration errors (TRE) are defined as the distances of pixels from their initial location in the motionless dataset pre- and post-registration. Let
-
\(\phi _i\) be the transformation that warps the initial reference image to the \(i^\text {th}\) motion-simulated image \(I_i\),
-
\(y_{\text {PW}_i}\) the transformation that aligns the \(i^\text {th}\) simulated image to the initial reference,
-
\(y_{\text {GW}_i}\) the transformation that aligns the \(i^\text {th}\) simulated image to the final reference, and
-
\(\psi \) the transformation aligning the final groupwise mean to the initial reference image.
Then the pairwise TREs before and after registration, respectively, are given by
On the other hand, the groupwise TREs are given by
Shown in Fig. 6 are the TREs for both PW-NGF and GW-NGF. Observe that the TRE post-GW registration had a smaller average compared to the usual pairwise approach. These are consistent with the results we obtained by analyzing the average signal intensity values over the same ROI in the previous section.
5 Conclusions
In this paper, we presented a computationally efficient and unbiased groupwise registration approach for correcting motion in a sequence of dynamic contrast-enhanced images. We also demonstrated how different distance measures affect the performance of a multilevel elastic registration algorithm for registering contrast-enhanced images and found that both the NGF and SSDIC are able to account for contrast changes between the template and reference images. Finally, we conclude that the groupwise approach combined with the NGF yielded the smoothest SI curves and the smallest TREs, implying that this method eliminates motion more accurately than methods that simply register against an arbitrarily chosen image from the dataset.
References
Ebrahimi, M., Lausch, A., Martel, A.L.: A Gauss-newton approach to joint image registration and intensity correction. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 112(3), 398–406 (2013)
Ebrahimi, M., Martel, A.L.: A general PDE-framework for registration of contrast enhanced images. In: Yang, G.-Z., Hawkes, D., Rueckert, D., Noble, A., Taylor, C. (eds.) MICCAI 2009. LNCS, vol. 5761, pp. 811–819. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04268-3_100
Geng, X., Christensen, G.E., Gu, H., Ross, T.J., Yang, Y.: Implicit reference-based group-wise image registration and its application to structural and functional MRI. Neuroimage 47(4), 1341–1351 (2009)
Helm, P.A.: A novel technique for quantifying variability of cardiac anatomy: application to the dyssynchronous failing heart. Ph.D thesis, The Johns Hopkins University 164 (2005)
Jansen, M., Kuijf, H., Veldhuis, W., Wessels, F., Van Leeuwen, M., Pluim, J.: Evaluation of motion correction for clinical dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of the liver. Phys. Med. Biol. 62(19), 7556 (2017)
Kim, M., Wu, G., Shen, D.: Groupwise registration of breast DCE-MR images for accurate tumor measurement. In: 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro, pp. 598–601. IEEE (2011)
Lausch, A., Ebrahimi, M., Martel, A.: Image registration for abdominal dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance images. In: 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro, pp. 561–565. IEEE (2011)
Martel, A., Froh, M., Brock, K., Plewes, D., Barber, D.: Evaluating an optical-flow-based registration algorithm for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the breast. Phys. Med. Biol. 52(13), 3803 (2007)
Modersitzki, J.: FAIR: Flexible Algorithms for Image Registration, vol. 6. SIAM (2009)
Mojica, M., Pop, M., Sermesant, M., Ebrahimi, M.: Multilevel non-parametric groupwise registration in Cardiac MRI: application to explanted porcine hearts. In: Pop, M. (ed.) STACOM 2017. LNCS, vol. 10663, pp. 60–69. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75541-0_7
Peyrat, J.M., et al.: A computational framework for the statistical analysis of cardiac diffusion tensors: application to a small database of canine hearts. IEEE Trans. Med. imaging 26(11), 1500–1514 (2007)
Sun, Y., Yan, C.H., Ong, S.-H., Tan, E.T., Wang, S.-C.: Intensity-based volumetric registration of contrast-enhanced MR breast images. In: Larsen, R., Nielsen, M., Sporring, J. (eds.) MICCAI 2006. LNCS, vol. 4190, pp. 671–678. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11866565_82
Tofts, P.: T1-weighted DCE imaging concepts: Modelling, acquisition and analysis. MAGNETOM Flash 3, 30–39 (2010)
Acknowledgments
This work was supported in part by an NSERC Discovery grant and Deborah Saucier Early Researcher Award for Mehran Ebrahimi. Mia Mojica is supported by an Ontario Trillium Scholarship (OTS). The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Anne Martel of Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada for great discussions and for providing the DCE-MRI data.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Mojica, M., Ebrahimi, M. (2018). An Unbiased Groupwise Registration Algorithm for Correcting Motion in Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Images. In: Stoyanov, D., et al. Image Analysis for Moving Organ, Breast, and Thoracic Images. RAMBO BIA TIA 2018 2018 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11040. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00946-5_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00946-5_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-00945-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-00946-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)