Emma Helbren

Respiratory motion correction in dynamic MRI using robust data decomposition registration - application to DCE-MRI.

Motion correction in Dynamic Contrast Enhanced (DCE-) MRI is challenging because rapid intensity changes can compromise common (intensity based) registration algorithms. In this study we introduce a novel registration technique based on robust principal component analysis (RPCA) to decompose a given time-series into a low rank and a sparse component. This allows robust separation of motion components that can be registered, from intensity variations that are left unchanged. This Robust Data Decomposition Registration (RDDR) is demonstrated on both simulated and a wide range of clinical data. Robustness to different types of motion and breathing choices during acquisition is demonstrated for a variety of imaged organs including liver, small bowel and prostate. The analysis of clinically relevant regions of interest showed both a decrease of error (15-62% reduction following registration) in tissue time-intensity curves and improved areas under the curve (AUC60) at early enhancement.

Small bowel strictures in Crohn’s disease: a quantitative investigation of intestinal motility using MR enterography

Intestinal stricturing and aberrant small bowel motility are common complications in patients with Crohns disease (CD) leading to significant morbidity. A retrospective study was performed quantifying small bowel motility within and upstream of strictures in CD patients using magnetic resonance enterography (MRE).

Clinical indications for computed tomographic colonography: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline

This is an official guideline of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR). It addresses the clinical indications for the use of computed tomographic colonography (CTC). A targeted literature search was performed to evaluate the evidence supporting the use of CTC. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. Main recommendations 1 ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia. ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 2 ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. Delay of CTC should be considered following endoscopic resection. In the case of obstructing colorectal cancer, preoperative contrast-enhanced CTC may also allow location or staging of malignant lesions (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 3 When endoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 4 ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp  ≥  6  mm in diameter detected at CTC. CTC surveillance may be clinically considered if patients do not undergo polypectomy (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 5 ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CTC as a primary test for population screening or in individuals with a positive first-degree family history of colorectal cancer (CRC). However, it may be proposed as a CRC screening test on an individual basis providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence).

Tracking Eye Gaze during Interpretation of Endoluminal Three-dimensional CT Colonography: Visual Perception of Experienced and Inexperienced Readers

PURPOSE To identify and compare key stages of the visual process in experienced and inexperienced readers and to examine how these processes are used to search a moving three-dimensional ( 3D three-dimensional ) image and their relationship to false-negative errors. MATERIALS AND METHODS Institutional review board research ethics approval was granted to use anonymized computed tomographic (CT) colonographic data from previous studies and to obtain eye-tracking data from volunteers. Sixty-five radiologists (27 experienced, 38 inexperienced) interpreted 23 endoluminal 3D three-dimensional CT colonographic videos. Eye movements were recorded by using eye tracking with a desk-mounted tracker. Readers indicated when they saw a polyp by clicking a computer mouse. Polyp location and boundary on each video frame were quantified and gaze data were related to the polyp boundary for each individual reader and case. Predefined metrics were quantified and used to describe and compare visual search patterns between experienced and inexperienced readers by using multilevel modeling. RESULTS Time to first pursuit was significantly shorter in experienced readers (hazard ratio, 1.22 [95% confidence interval: 1.04, 1.44]; P = .017) but other metrics were not significantly different. Regardless of expertise, metrics such as assessment, identification period, and pursuit times were extended in videos where polyps were visible on screen for longer periods of time. In 97% (760 of 787) of observations, readers correctly pursued polyps. CONCLUSION Experienced readers had shorter time to first eye pursuit, but many other characteristics of eye tracking were similar between experienced and inexperienced readers. Readers pursued polyps in 97% of observations, which indicated that errors during interpretation of 3D three-dimensional CT colonography in this study occurred in either the discovery or the recognition phase, but rarely in the scanning phase of radiologic image inspection.

Detection of Extracolonic Pathologic Findings with CT Colonography: A Discrete Choice Experiment of Perceived Benefits versus Harms

PURPOSE To determine the maximum rate of false-positive diagnoses that patients and health care professionals were willing to accept in exchange for detection of extracolonic malignancy by using computed tomographic (CT) colonography for colorectal cancer screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS After obtaining ethical approval and informed consent, 52 patients and 50 health care professionals undertook two discrete choice experiments where they chose between unrestricted CT colonography that examined intra- and extracolonic organs or CT colonography restricted to the colon, across different scenarios. The first experiment detected one extracolonic malignancy per 600 cases with a false-positive rate varying across scenarios from 0% to 99.8%. One experiment examined radiologic follow-up generated by false-positive diagnoses while the other examined invasive follow-up. Intracolonic performance was identical for both tests. The median tipping point (maximum acceptable false-positive rate for extracolonic findings) was calculated overall and for both groups by bootstrap analysis. RESULTS The median tipping point for radiologic follow-up occurred at a false-positive rate greater than 99.8% (interquartile ratio [IQR], 10 to >99.8%). Participants would tolerate at least a 99.8% rate of unnecessary radiologic tests to detect an additional extracolonic malignancy. The median tipping-point for invasive follow-up occurred at a false-positive rate of 10% (IQR, 2 to >99.8%). Tipping points were significantly higher for patients than for health care professionals for both experiments (>99.8 vs 40% for radiologic follow-up and >99.8 vs 5% for invasive follow-up, both P < .001). CONCLUSION Patients and health care professionals are willing to tolerate high rates of false-positive diagnoses with CT colonography in exchange for diagnosis of extracolonic malignancy. The actual specificity of screening CT colonography for extracolonic findings in clinical practice is likely to be highly acceptable to both patients and health care professionals. Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Respiratory Motion Correction in Dynamic-MRI: Application to Small Bowel Motility Quantification during Free Breathing

This study introduces a combination of two registration techniques for respiratory motion removal and the quantification of small bowel motility from free breathing cine MRI. The use of robust data decomposition registration (RDDR) allows for exclusive correction of respiratory motion in order to avoid errors in further analysis of motility due to the effects of breathing. The proposed method is assessed using regions of interest (ROIs) contoured in dynamic MRI of six healthy volunteers. The use of RDDR prior to motility quantification results in reduced errors on motility scores in ROIs, with respect to breath-holds.

Endoluminal surface registration for CT colonography using haustral fold matching

Graphical abstract

CT Colonography: External Clinical Validation of an Algorithm for Computer-assisted Prone and Supine Registration

PURPOSE To perform external validation of a computer-assisted registration algorithm for prone and supine computed tomographic (CT) colonography and to compare the results with those of an existing centerline method. MATERIALS AND METHODS All contributing centers had institutional review board approval; participants provided informed consent. A validation sample of CT colonographic examinations of 51 patients with 68 polyps (6-55 mm) was selected from a publicly available, HIPAA compliant, anonymized archive. No patients were excluded because of poor preparation or inadequate distension. Corresponding prone and supine polyp coordinates were recorded, and endoluminal surfaces were registered automatically by using a computer algorithm. Two observers independently scored three-dimensional endoluminal polyp registration success. Results were compared with those obtained by using the normalized distance along the colonic centerline (NDACC) method. Pairwise Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to compare gross registration error and McNemar tests were used to compare polyp conspicuity. RESULTS Registration was possible in all 51 patients, and 136 paired polyp coordinates were generated (68 polyps) to test the algorithm. Overall mean three-dimensional polyp registration error (mean ± standard deviation, 19.9 mm ± 20.4) was significantly less than that for the NDACC method (mean, 27.4 mm ± 15.1; P = .001). Accuracy was unaffected by colonic segment (P = .76) or luminal collapse (P = .066). During endoluminal review by two observers (272 matching tasks, 68 polyps, prone to supine and supine to prone coordinates), 223 (82%) polyp matches were visible (120° field of view) compared with just 129 (47%) when the NDACC method was used (P < .001). By using multiplanar visualization, 48 (70%) polyps were visible after scrolling ± 15 mm in any multiplanar axis compared with 16 (24%) for NDACC (P < .001). CONCLUSION Computer-assisted registration is more accurate than the NDACC method for mapping the endoluminal surface and matching the location of polyps in corresponding prone and supine CT colonographic acquisitions.

CT Colonography: Clinical Evaluation of a Method for Automatic Coregistration of Polyps at Follow-up Surveillance Studies

PURPOSE To evaluate the accuracy of a method of automatic coregistration of the endoluminal surfaces at computed tomographic (CT) colonography performed on separate occasions to facilitate identification of polyps in patients undergoing polyp surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS Institutional review board and HIPAA approval were obtained. A registration algorithm that was designed to coregister the coordinates of endoluminal colonic surfaces on images from prone and supine CT colonographic acquisitions was used to match polyps in sequential studies in patients undergoing polyp surveillance. Initial and follow-up CT colonographic examinations in 26 patients (35 polyps) were selected and the algorithm was tested by means of two methods, the longitudinal method (polyp coordinates from the initial prone and supine acquisitions were used to identify the expected polyp location automatically at follow-up CT colonography) and the consistency method (polyp coordinates from the initial supine acquisition were used to identify polyp location on images from the initial prone acquisition, then on those for follow-up prone and follow-up supine acquisitions). Two observers measured the Euclidean distance between true and expected polyp locations, and mean per-patient registration accuracy was calculated. Segments with and without collapse were compared by using the Kruskal-Wallace test, and the relationship between registration error and temporal separation was investigated by using the Pearson correlation. RESULTS Coregistration was achieved for all 35 polyps by using both longitudinal and consistency methods. Mean ± standard deviation Euclidean registration error for the longitudinal method was 17.4 mm ± 12.1 and for the consistency method, 26.9 mm ± 20.8. There was no significant difference between these results and the registration error when prone and supine acquisitions in the same study were compared (16.9 mm ± 17.6; P = .451). CONCLUSION Automatic endoluminal coregistration by using an algorithm at initial CT colonography allowed prediction of endoluminal polyp location at subsequent CT colonography, thereby facilitating detection of known polyps in patients undergoing CT colonographic surveillance.

Do prevalence expectations affect patterns of visual search and decision-making in interpreting CT colonography endoluminal videos?

OBJECTIVE To assess the effect of expected abnormality prevalence on visual search and decision-making in CT colonography (CTC). METHODS 13 radiologists interpreted endoluminal CTC fly-throughs of the same group of 10 patient cases, 3 times each. Abnormality prevalence was fixed (50%), but readers were told, before viewing each group, that prevalence was either 20%, 50% or 80% in the population from which cases were drawn. Infrared visual search recording was used. Readers indicated seeing a polyp by clicking a mouse. Multilevel modelling quantified the effect of expected prevalence on outcomes. RESULTS Differences between expected prevalence were not statistically significant for time to first pursuit of the polyp (median 0.5 s, each prevalence), pursuit rate when no polyp was on screen (median 2.7 s(-1), each prevalence) or number of mouse clicks [mean 0.75/video (20% prevalence), 0.93 (50%), 0.97 (80%)]. There was weak evidence of increased tendency to look outside the central screen area at 80% prevalence and reduction in positive polyp identifications at 20% prevalence. CONCLUSION This study did not find a large effect of prevalence information on most visual search metrics or polyp identification in CTC. Further research is required to quantify effects at lower prevalence and in relation to secondary outcome measures. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE Prevalence effects in evaluating CTC have not previously been assessed. In this study, providing expected prevalence information did not have a large effect on diagnostic decisions or patterns of visual search.