Feasibility of fusing three‐dimensional transabdominal and transrectal ultrasound images for comprehensive intraoperative visualization of gynecologic brachytherapy applicators
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PURPOSE: In this study, we propose combining three-dimensional (3D) transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) and 3D transabdominal ultrasound (TAUS) images of gynecologic brachytherapy applicators to leverage the advantages of each imaging perspective, providing a broader field-of-view and allowing previously obscured features to be recovered. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of fusing these 3D ultrasound (US) perspectives based on the applicator geometry in a phantom prior to clinical implementation. METHODS: In proof-of-concept experiments, 3D US images of application-specific multimodality pelvic phantoms were acquired with tandem-and-ring and tandem-and-ovoids applicators using previously validated imaging systems. Two TRUS images were acquired at different insertion depths and manually fused based on the position of the ring/ovoids to broaden the TRUS field-of-view. The phantom design allowed "abdominal thickness" to be modified to represent different body habitus and TAUS images were acquired at three thicknesses for each applicator. The merged TRUS images were then combined with TAUS images by rigidly aligning applicator components and manually refining the registration using the positions of source channels and known tandem length, as well as the ring diameter for the tandem-and-ring applicator. Combined 3D US images were manually, rigidly registered to images from a second modality (magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for the tandem-and-ring applicator and X-ray computed tomography (CT) for the tandem-and-ovoids applicator (based on applicator compatibility)) to assess alignment. Four spherical fiducials were used to calculate target registration errors (TREs), providing a metric for validating registrations, where TREs were computed using root-mean-square distances to describe the alignment of manually identified corresponding fiducials. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to identify statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between the TREs for the three abdominal thicknesses for each applicator type. As an additional indicator of geometric accuracy, the bladder was segmented in the 3D US and corresponding MR/CT images, and volumetric differences and Dice similarity coefficients (DSCs) were calculated. RESULTS: For both applicator types, the combination of 3D TRUS with 3D TAUS images allowed image information obscured by the shadowing artifacts under single imaging perspectives to be recovered. For the tandem-and-ring applicator, the mean ± one standard deviation (SD) TREs from the images with increasing thicknesses were 1.37 ± 1.35 mm, 1.84 ± 1.22 mm, and 1.60 ± 1.00 mm. Similarly, for the tandem-and-ovoids applicator, the mean ± SD TREs from the images with increasing thicknesses were 1.37 ± 0.35 mm, 1.95 ± 0.90 mm, and 1.61 ± 0.76 mm. No statistically significant difference was detected in the TREs for the three thicknesses for either applicator type. The mean volume differences for the bladder segmentations were 3.14% and 2.33% and mean DSCs were 87.8% and 87.7% for the tandem-and-ring and tandem-and-ovoids applicators, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this proof-of-concept study, we demonstrated the feasibility of fusing 3D TRUS and 3D TAUS images based on the geometry of tandem-and-ring and tandem-and-ovoids applicators. This represents a step toward an accessible and low-cost 3D imaging method for gynecologic brachytherapy, with the potential to extend this approach to other intracavitary configurations and hybrid applicators.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».