Premium
WE‐AB‐BRA‐08: Correction of Patient Motion in C‐Arm Cone‐Beam CT Using 3D‐2D Registration
Author(s) -
Ouadah S,
Jacobson M,
Stayman JW,
Ehtiati T,
Siewerdsen JH
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.4957737
Subject(s) - fiducial marker , imaging phantom , computer vision , artificial intelligence , image registration , cone beam computed tomography , projection (relational algebra) , iterative reconstruction , computer science , mathematics , medical imaging , orientation (vector space) , motion (physics) , nuclear medicine , physics , optics , image (mathematics) , computed tomography , geometry , medicine , algorithm , radiology
Purpose: Intraoperative C‐arm cone‐beam CT (CBCT) is subject to artifacts arising from patient motion during the fairly long (∼5–20 s) scan times. We present a fiducial free method to mitigate motion artifacts using 3D‐2D image registration that simultaneously corrects residual errors in geometric calibration. Methods: A 3D‐2D registration process was used to register each projection to DRRs computed from the 3D image by maximizing gradient orientation (GO) using the CMA‐ES optimizer. The resulting rigid 6 DOF transforms were applied to the system projection matrices, and a 3D image was reconstructed via model‐based image reconstruction (MBIR, which accommodates the resulting noncircular orbit). Experiments were conducted using a Zeego robotic C‐arm (20 s, 200°, 496 projections) to image a head phantom undergoing various types of motion: 1) 5° lateral motion; 2) 15° lateral motion; and 3) 5° lateral motion with 10 mm periodic inferior‐superior motion. Images were reconstructed using a penalized likelihood (PL) objective function, and structural similarity (SSIM) was measured for axial slices of the reconstructed images. A motion‐free image was acquired using the same protocol for comparison. Results: There was significant improvement (p < 0.001) in the SSIM of the motion‐corrected (MC) images compared to uncorrected images. The SSIM in MC‐PL images was >0.99, indicating near identity to the motion‐free reference. The point spread function (PSF) measured from a wire in the phantom was restored to that of the reference in each case. Conclusion: The 3D‐2D registration method provides a robust framework for mitigation of motion artifacts and is expected to hold for applications in the head, pelvis, and extremities with reasonably constrained operative setup. Further improvement can be achieved by incorporating multiple rigid components and non‐rigid deformation within the framework. The method is highly parallelizable and could in principle be run with every acquisition. Research supported by National Institutes of Health Grant No. R01‐EB‐017226 and academic‐industry partnership with Siemens Healthcare (AX Division, Forcheim, Germany).