Registration of renal SPECT and 2.5D US images

Image registration is the process of transforming different image data sets of an object into the same coordinate system. This is a relevant task in the field of medical imaging; one of its objectives is to com- bine information from different imaging modalities. The main goal of this study is the registration of renal SPECT (Single Photon Emission Computerized Tomography) images and a sparse set of ultrasound slices (2.5D US), combining functional and anatomical information. Registration is performed after kidney seg- mentation in both image types. The SPECT segmentation is achieved using a deformable model based on a simplex mesh. The 2.5D US image segmentation is carried out in each of the 2D slices employing a deformable contour and Gabor filters to capture multi-scale image features. Moreover, a renal medulla detection method was developed to improve the US segmentation. A nonlinear optimization algorithm is used for the registration. In this process, movements caused by patient breathing during US image acquisition are also corrected. Only a few reports describe registration between SPECT images and a sparse set of US slices of the kidney, and they usually employ an optical localizer, unlike our method, that performs movement correction using information only from the SPECT and US images. Moreover, it does not require simultaneous acquisition of both image types. The registration method and both seg- mentations were evaluated separately. The SPECT segmentation was evaluated qualitatively by medical experts, obtaining a score of 5 over a scale from 1 to 5, where 5 represents a perfect segmentation. The 2.5D US segmentation was evaluated quantitatively, by comparing our method with an expert manual segmentation, and obtaining an average error of 3.3 mm. The registration was evaluated quantitatively and qualitatively. Quantitatively the distance between the manual segmentation of the US images and the model extracted from the SPECT image was measured, obtaining an average distance of 1.07 pixels on 7 exams. The qualitative evaluation was carried out by a group of physicians who assessed the perceived clinical usefulness of the image registration, rating each registration on a scale from 1 to 5. The average