ArticleProceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering
Breast image registration for surgery: Insights on material mechanics modeling.
Article in Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing regularized Kelvinlet functions and the finite element method for registration of medical images to sparse organ data.Medical image analysis · 2024Article
- Supine magnetic resonance image registration for breast surgery: insights on material mechanics.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Breast conserving surgery (BCS) is a common procedure for early-stage breast cancer patients. Supine preoperative magnetic resonance (MR) breast imaging for visualizing tumor location and extent, while not standard for procedural guidance, more closely represents the surgical presentation compared to conventional diagnostic pendant positioning. Optimal utilization for surgical guidance, however, requires a fast and accurate image-to-physical registration from preoperative imaging to intraoperative surgical presentation. In this study, three registration methods were investigated on healthy volunteers' breasts (n=11) with the arm-down position simulating preoperative imaging and arm-up position simulating intraoperative data. The registration methods included: (1) point-based rigid registration using synthetic fiducials, (2) non-rigid biomechanical model-based registration using sparse data, and (3) a data-dense 3D diffeomorphic image-based registration from the Advanced Normalization Tools (ANTs) repository. The average target registration errors (TRE) were 10.4 ± 2.3, 6.4 ± 1.5, and 2.8 ± 1.3 mm (mean ± standard deviation) and the average fiducial registration errors (FRE) were 7.8 ± 1.7, 2.5 ± 1.1, and 3.1 ± 1.1 mm (mean ± standard deviation) for the point-based rigid, nonrigid biomechanical, and ANTs registrations, respectively. Additionally, common mechanics-based deformation metrics (volume change and anisotropy) were calculated from the ANTs deformation field. The average metrics revealed anisotropic tissue behavior and a statistical difference in volume change between glandular and adipose tissue, suggesting that nonrigid modeling methods may be improved by incorporating material heterogeneity and anisotropy. Overall, registration accuracy significantly improved with increasingly flexible registration methods, which may inform future development of image guidance systems for lumpectomy procedures.
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.