HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Pfluger, T. Articles by Hahn, K. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Pfluger, T. Articles by Hahn, K.

Quantitative Comparison of Automatic and Interactive Methods for MRI–SPECT Image Registration of the Brain Based on 3-Dimensional Calculation of Error

Departments of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum Innenstadt, University of Munich, Munich, Germany

A wide range of techniques for registration of medical images has been devised in recent years. The aim of this study is to quantify the overall spatial registration error of 3 different methods for image registration: interactive matching, surface matching, and uniformity index matching as described by Woods. Methods: MRI and ethylcysteinate dimer-SPECT images of the brain were registered for 15 patients. The matching error was assessed by determining intra- and interobserver variability of registrations. Quantification of the registration error was based on the mean spatial distance of 5000 voxels between 2 image positions. The mean position after repeated registrations in each patient was used as the gold standard. To evaluate the coherence of the 3 different registration methods, intermethod variability was determined. Results: Interactive matching showed an intraobserver/interobserver variability of 1.5 ± 0.3 mm/1.6 ± 0.3 mm (mean ± SD). The time demand for this method was 11 ± 5 min. Surface matching revealed a variability of 2.6 ± 1.1 mm/3.8 ± 1.0 mm and a time demand of 26 ± 12 min. Reproducibility of Woods' algorithm was 2.2 ± 0.8 mm with a time demand of 9 ± 3 min. In 4 of the 15 cases, Woods' method failed. The mean deviation between all 3 methods was 2.3 ± 0.8 mm. Conclusion: With a suitable user interface, interactive matching had the lowest registration error. The influence of subjectivity was shown to be negligible. Therefore, interactive matching is our preferred technique for image fusion of the brain.

Key Words: image fusion • image registration • MRI • SPECT • brain

Received Aug. 6, 1999; revision accepted May 5, 2000.

For correspondence or reprints contact: Thomas Pfluger, MD, Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Klinikum Innenstadt, University of Munich, Ziemssenstrasse 1, D-80336 Munich, Germany.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. Moy, F. Ponzo, M. E. Noz, G. Q. Maguire Jr., A. D. Murphy-Walcott, A. E. Deans, M. T. Kitazono, L. Travascio, and E. L. Kramer Improving Specificity of Breast MRI Using Prone PET and Fused MRI and PET 3D Volume Datasets J. Nucl. Med., April 1, 2007; 48(4): 528 - 537. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. J. Schettino, E. L. Kramer, M. E. Noz, S. Taneja, P. Padmanabhan, and H. Lepor Impact of Fusion of Indium-111 Capromab Pendetide Volume Data Sets with Those from MRI or CT in Patients with Recurrent Prostate Cancer Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2004; 183(2): 519 - 524. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Y.-M. Zhu and S. M. Cochoff Influence of Implementation Parameters on Registration of MR and SPECT Brain Images by Maximization of Mutual Information J. Nucl. Med., February 1, 2002; 43(2): 160 - 166. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]