Selecting registration schemes in case of interstitial lung disease follow-up in CT

Authors


Abstract

Purpose:

Primary goal of this study is to select optimal registration schemes in the framework of interstitial lung disease (ILD) follow-up analysis in CT.

Methods:

A set of 128 multiresolution schemes composed of multiresolution nonrigid and combinations of rigid and nonrigid registration schemes are evaluated, utilizing ten artificially warped ILD follow-up volumes, originating from ten clinical volumetric CT scans of ILD affected patients, to select candidate optimal schemes. Specifically, all combinations of four transformation models (three rigid: rigid, similarity, affine and one nonrigid: third order B-spline), four cost functions (sum-of-square distances, normalized correlation coefficient, mutual information, and normalized mutual information), four gradient descent optimizers (standard, regular step, adaptive stochastic, and finite difference), and two types of pyramids (recursive and Gaussian-smoothing) were considered. The selection process involves two stages. The first stage involves identification of schemes with deformation field singularities, according to the determinant of the Jacobian matrix. In the second stage, evaluation methodology is based on distance between corresponding landmark points in both normal lung parenchyma (NLP) and ILD affected regions. Statistical analysis was performed in order to select near optimal registration schemes per evaluation metric. Performance of the candidate registration schemes was verified on a case sample of ten clinical follow-up CT scans to obtain the selected registration schemes.

Results:

By considering near optimal schemes common to all ranking lists, 16 out of 128 registration schemes were initially selected. These schemes obtained submillimeter registration accuracies in terms of average distance errors 0.18 ± 0.01 mm for NLP and 0.20 ± 0.01 mm for ILD, in case of artificially generated follow-up data. Registration accuracy in terms of average distance error in clinical follow-up data was in the range of 1.985–2.156 mm and 1.966–2.234 mm, for NLP and ILD affected regions, respectively, excluding schemes with statistically significant lower performance (Wilcoxon signed-ranks test, p < 0.05), resulting in 13 finally selected registration schemes.

Conclusions:

Selected registration schemes in case of ILD CT follow-up analysis indicate the significance of adaptive stochastic gradient descent optimizer, as well as the importance of combined rigid and nonrigid schemes providing high accuracy and time efficiency. The selected optimal deformable registration schemes are equivalent in terms of their accuracy and thus compatible in terms of their clinical outcome.

Ancillary