BACKGROUND: Guidelines for localizing prostate cancer on imaging are ideally informed by registered post-prostatectomy histology. 3D histology reconstruction methods can support this by reintroducing 3D spatial information lost during histology processing. The need to register small, high-grade foci drives a need for high accuracy. Accurate 3D reconstruction method design is impacted by the answers to the following central questions of this work. (1) How does prostate tissue deform during histology processing? (2) What spatial misalignment of the tissue sections is induced by microtome cutting? (3) How does the choice of reconstruction model affect histology reconstruction accuracy?
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Histology, paraffin block face and magnetic resonance images were acquired for 18 whole mid-gland tissue slices from six prostates. 7-15 homologous landmarks were identified on each image. Tissue deformation due to histology processing was characterized using the target registration error (TRE) after landmark-based registration under four deformation models (rigid, similarity, affine and thin-plate-spline [TPS]). The misalignment of histology sections from the front faces of tissue slices was quantified using manually identified landmarks. The impact of reconstruction models on the TRE after landmark-based reconstruction was measured under eight reconstruction models comprising one of four deformation models with and without constraining histology images to the tissue slice front faces.
RESULTS: Isotropic scaling improved the mean TRE by 0.8-1.0 mm (all results reported as 95% confidence intervals), while skew or TPS deformation improved the mean TRE by <0.1 mm="" the="" mean="" misalignment="" was="" 1="" 1-1="" 9="" angle="" and="" 0="" 9-1="" 3="" depth="" using="" isotropic="" scaling="" front="" face="" constraint="" raised="" tre="" by="" 6-0="" 8="" p=""> CONCLUSIONS: For sub-millimeter accuracy, 3D reconstruction models should not constrain histology images to the tissue slice front faces and should be flexible enough to model isotropic scaling.
Written by:
Gibson E1, Gaed M2, Gómez JA3, Moussa M3, Pautler S4, Chin JL5, Crukley C6, Bauman GS7, Fenster A8, Ward AD9 Are you the author?
1Robarts Research Institute, London, Canada ; Graduate Program in Biomedical Engineering, London, Canada. 2Robarts Research Institute, London, Canada ; Lawson Health Research Institute, London, Canada ; Department of Pathology, The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada. 3Department of Pathology, The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada. 4Lawson Health Research Institute, London, Canada ; Department of Urology, The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada. 5Department of Urology, The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada. 6Robarts Research Institute, London, Canada ; Lawson Health Research Institute, London, Canada. 7Department of Oncology, The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada. 8Robarts Research Institute, London, Canada ; Graduate Program in Biomedical Engineering, London, Canada ; Lawson Health Research Institute, London, Canada ; Department of Oncology, The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada ; Department of Medical Biophysics, The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada. 9Graduate Program in Biomedical Engineering, London, Canada ; Lawson Health Research Institute, London, Canada ; Department of Oncology, The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada ; Department of Medical Biophysics, The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada.
Reference: J Pathol Inform. 2013 Oct 31;4:31. eCollection 2013
doi: 10.4103/2153-3539.120874
PubMed Abstract
PMID: 24392245
UroToday.com Prostate Cancer Section
