ArticleAcademic radiology2015
Graphics Processing Unit-Accelerated Nonrigid Registration of MR Images to CT Images During CT-Guided Percutaneous Liver Tumor Ablations.
Article in Academic radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Percutaneous Cryoablation Versus Microwave Ablation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Comparative Study of Safety and Oncologic Outcomes.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2026Article
- PET/CT Fluoroscopy during PET/CT-Guided Interventions: Initial Experience.Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR · 2023Article
- Rapid Quality Assessment of Nonrigid Image Registration Based on Supervised Learning.Journal of digital imaging · 2021Article
- Advanced Techniques in the Percutaneous Ablation of Liver Tumours.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Multimodal image registration for liver radioembolization planning and patient assessment.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2019Article
- Percutaneous Image-Guided Cryoablation of Hepatic Tumors: Single-Center Experience With Intermediate to Long-Term Outcomes.AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2017Article
- Three-dimensional quantitative assessment of ablation margins based on registration of pre- and post-procedural MRI and distance map.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2016Article
- Recent Advances in Ablative Therapies for HCC.Journal of clinical and experimental hepatologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
RATIONALE AND
objectivesAccuracy and speed are essential for the intraprocedural nonrigid magnetic resonance (MR) to computed tomography (CT) image registration in the assessment of tumor margins during CT-guided liver tumor ablations. Although both accuracy and speed can be improved by limiting the registration to a region of interest (ROI), manual contouring of the ROI prolongs the registration process substantially. To achieve accurate and fast registration without the use of an ROI, we combined a nonrigid registration technique on the basis of volume subdivision with hardware acceleration using a graphics processing unit (GPU). We compared the registration accuracy and processing time of GPU-accelerated volume subdivision-based nonrigid registration technique to the conventional nonrigid B-spline registration technique. MATERIALS AND
methodsFourteen image data sets of preprocedural MR and intraprocedural CT images for percutaneous CT-guided liver tumor ablations were obtained. Each set of images was registered using the GPU-accelerated volume subdivision technique and the B-spline technique. Manual contouring of ROI was used only for the B-spline technique. Registration accuracies (Dice similarity coefficient [DSC] and 95% Hausdorff distance [HD]) and total processing time including contouring of ROIs and computation were compared using a paired Student t test.
resultsAccuracies of the GPU-accelerated registrations and B-spline registrations, respectively, were 88.3 ± 3.7% versus 89.3 ± 4.9% (P = .41) for DSC and 13.1 ± 5.2 versus 11.4 ± 6.3 mm (P = .15) for HD. Total processing time of the GPU-accelerated registration and B-spline registration techniques was 88 ± 14 versus 557 ± 116 seconds (P < .000000002), respectively; there was no significant difference in computation time despite the difference in the complexity of the algorithms (P = .71).
conclusionsThe GPU-accelerated volume subdivision technique was as accurate as the B-spline technique and required significantly less processing time. The GPU-accelerated volume subdivision technique may enable the implementation of nonrigid registration into routine clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.