Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Breast image registration techniques: a survey

  • REVIEW ARTICLE
  • Published:
Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer in women worldwide. Image registration plays an important role in breast cancer detection. This paper gives an overview of the current state-of-the-art in the breast image registration techniques. For the intra-modality registration techniques, X-ray, MRI, and ultrasound are the primary focuses of interest. Inter-modality techniques will cover the combination of different modalities. Validation of breast registration methods is also discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American Cancer Society (2005) Statistics for 2005. http://www.cancer.org 2005

  2. Audette M, Ferrie F, Peters T (2000) An algorithmic overview of surface registration techniques for medical imaging. Med Image Anal 4(3):201–217

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Azar FS, Metaxas DN, Schnall MD (2000) A finite model of the breast for predicting mechanical deformations during biopsy procedure. In: IEEE workshop on mathematical methods in biomedical image analysis, Hilton Head, South Carolina, pp 38–45

  4. Bajcsy R, Kovacic S (1989) Multiresolution elastic matching. Comput Vis Graphic Image Process 46(1):1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Baker LH (1982) Breast cancer detection demonstration project: 5 year summary report. CA Cancer J Clin 32:196–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bakic P, Richard F, Maidment ADA (2004) Effect of breast compression on registration of successive mammograms. In: Digital mammography IWDM 2004, Springer, Chapel Hill

  7. Bakic P, Brzakovic D, Brzakovic P, Zhu Z (1998) An approach to using a generalized breast model to segment digital mammograms. In: 11th IEEE symposium on computer-based medical systems, Lubbock, Texas pp 84–89

  8. Bankman JN (2000) Handbook of medical imaging: processing and analysis. Academic, New York

    Google Scholar 

  9. Behrenbruch CP, Yam M, Brady M, English RE (2000) The use of magnetic resonance imaging to model breast compression in X-ray mammography for MR/X-ray data fusion. In: Yaffe MJ (ed) Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on digital mammography, Medical Physics Publishing, Madison

  10. Bénard F, Turcotte É (2005) Imaging in breast cancer: single-photon computed tomography and positron-emission tomography. Breast Cancer Res 7:153–162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T, Kinahan PE, Charron M, Roddy R, Jerin J, Young J, Byars L, Nutt R (2000) A combined PET-CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med 41:1369–1379

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bird RE, Wallace TW, Yankaskas BC (1992) Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography. Radiology 184(3):613–617

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bockisch A, Beyer T, Antoch G, Freudenberg LS, Kuhl H, Debatin JF, Muller SP (2004) Positron emission tomography/computed tomography-imaging protocols artifacts and pitfalls. Mol Imaging Biol 6(4):188–199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bombardieri E, Gianni L (2004) The choice of the correct imaging modality in breast cancer management. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 31(Suppl 1): S179–S186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bookstein FL (1989) Principal Warps: thin-plate splines and the decomposition of deformations. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 11(6):567–585

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Boone JM, Nelson TR, Lindfors KK, Seibert JA (2001) Dedicated breast CT: radiation dose and image quality evaluation. Radiology 221(3):657–667

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Brown LG (1992) A survey of image registration techniques. ACM Comput Surv 24(4):325–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bruckner T, Lucht R, Brix G (2000) Comparison of rigid and elastic matching of dynamic magnetic resonance mammographic images by mutual information. Med Phys 27(10):2456–2461

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Brzakovic D, Vujovic N, Neskovicand M, Brzakovic P, Fogerty K (1996) Mammogram analysis by comparison with previous screenings. In: Doi K, Giger ML, Nishikawa RM, Schmidt RA (eds) Digital Mammogrphy’96, Elsevier, Amsterdam

  20. Chandrasekhar R, Attikiouzel Y (1997) A simple method for automatically locating the nipple on mammograms. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 16(5):483–494

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Chen H, Varshney PK (2003) Mutual information based CT–MR brain image registration using generalized partial volume joint histogram estimation. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 22(9):1111–1119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Collignon A, Maes F, Delaere D, Vandermeulen D, Suetens P, Marchal G (1995) Automated multi-modality image registration based on information theory. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on information processing in medical imaging, Ile de Berder, France, June 1995, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 263–274

  23. Czernin J (2004) Summary of selected PET-CT abstracts from the 2003 Society of Nuclear Medicine annual meeting. J Nucl Med 45:S102–S103

    Google Scholar 

  24. Davey M, Wilkinson ID, Balen F, Mumtaz H, Paley M, Plummer DL, Hall-Craggs MA, Lees WR, Linney A (1997) Detecting breast cancer: registration of pre- and post-contrast T1-weighted 3D data sets. In: Proceedings of 5th scientific meeting of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Vancouver, Canada, p 1048

  25. Davis MH, Khotanzad A, Flamig DP, Harms SE (1995) Coordinate transformation in 3D image matching by a physics based method-elastic body splines. In: International symposium on computer vision coral gables, Florida, pp 218–222

  26. Duncan W, Kerr CR (1976) The curability of breast cancer. Br Med J 2(6039):781–783

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Elbakri I, Entrekin R, Coad C, Danielson T, Janer R (2004) Integrated full-field digital mammography and 3D breast ultrasound system. In: AAPM 46th annual meeting, Pittsburgh

  28. van den Elsen PA, Pol E-JD, Viergever MA (1993) Medical image matching—a review with classification. IEEE Eng Med Biol 12(2):16–39

    Google Scholar 

  29. Engeland S, Snoeren P, Hendriks J, Karssemeijer N (2003) A comparison of methods for mammogram registration. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 22(11):1436–1444

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Feig SA (1992) Breast masses mammographic and sonographic evaluation. Radiol Clin North Am 30(1):67–92

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Fischer B, Modersitzki J (2002) Curvature based registration with applications to MR mammography computational science, In: Sloot PMA et al (eds) ICCS 2002 LNCS 2331, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 203–206

  32. Fischer H, Otte M, Ehritt-Braun C, Laubenberger J, Hennig J (1999) Local elastic matching and pattern recognition in MR mammography. Int J Imaging Syst Technol 10(2):199–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Fitzpatrick JM, Hill DLG, Mauer CR (2000) Image registration handbook of medical imaging, vol 2. SPIE Press, Bellingham, pp 375–435

  34. Foxcroft LM, Evans EB, Joshua HK, Hirst C (2000) Breast cancers invisible on mammography. Aust N Z J Surg 70(3):162-167

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Frangi AF, Niessen WJ, Viergever MA (2001) Three-dimensional modeling for functional analysis of cardiac images a review. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 20(1):2–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Giger ML (1993) Computer-aided diagnosis technical aspects of mammography. Haus AG, Yaffe MJ. RSNA Publications, Oakbrook, pp 1993–1999

  37. Giger ML, Lu P, Huo Z, Bick U, Vyborny CJ, Schmidt RA, Zhang W, Metz CE, Wolverton D, Nishikawa RM, Zouras W, Doi K (1994) CAD in digital mammography: computerized detection and classification of masses. In: International workshop on digital mammography, York England, pp 281–287

  38. Gordon PB, Goldenberg SL (1995) Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound: a retrospective review. Cancer 76(4):626–630

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Guo Y, Suri JS, Sivaramakrishna R (2004) Image registration for breast imaging: a survey EMBC 2005, Shanghai, China, Sep 2005

  40. Hadjiiski L, Chan H, Sahiner B, Petrick N, Helvie MA (2001) Automated registration of breast lesions in temporal pairs of mammograms for interval change analysis-local affine transformation for improved localization. Med Phys 28(6):1070–1079

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Hajnal J, Hawkes D, Hill D (2001) Medical image registration. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  42. Hand W, Semmlow JL, Ackerman LV, Alcoru FS (1979) Computer screening of xeromammograms: a technique for defining suspicious areas of the breast. Comput Biomed Res 12(5): 445–460

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Hayton PM (1998) Analysis of contrast-enhanced breast. MR images. Oxford University, UK

  44. Hayton PM, Brady M, Smith SM, Moore N (1999) A non-rigid registration algorithm for dynamic breast MR images. Artif Intell 114(1–2):125–156

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  45. Heath M, Bowyer K, Kopans D, Kegelmeyer P Jr, Moore R, Chang K, Munishkumaran S (1998) Current status of the digital database for screening mammography digital mammography. Karssemeijer N, Thijssen M, Hendriks J, van Erning A (1998) Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht the Netherlands, pp 457–460

  46. Heath M, Bowyer K, Kopans D, Moore R, Kegelmeyer P Jr (2000) The digital database for screening mammography. In: Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on digital mammography, Medical Physics Publishing, Madison, June 2000, ISBN 1-930524-00-5

  47. Heywang SH, Wolf A, Pruss E, Hilbertz T, Eiermann W, Permanetter W (1989) MR imaging of the breast with Gd-DTPA: use and limitations. Radiology 171(1):95–113

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Highnam R, Kita Y, Brady M, Shepstone B, English R (1998) Determining correspondence between views. In: Proceedings of IWDM 98, Springer, Nijmegen

  49. Hill DLG, Batchelor PG, Holden MH, Hawkes DJ (2001) Medical image registration. Phys Med Biol 46(1):1–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Hilton SV, Leopold GR, Olson LK, Willson SA (1986) Real-time breast sonography: application in 300 consecutive patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 147(3):479–486

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Huwer S, Rahmel J, Wangenheim Av (1996) Data-driven registration for local deformations. Pattern Recognit Lett 17:951–957

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Jackson VP (1990) The role of US in breast imaging. Radiology 177(2):305–311

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Jackson VP, Hendrick RE, Feig SA, Kopans DB (1993) Imaging of the radiographically dense breast. Radiology 188:297–301

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Jackson VP, Reynolds HE, Hawes DR (1996) Sonography of the breast. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 17(5):460–475

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Jansson T, Westlin JE, Ahlstrom H, Lilja A, Langstrom B, Bergh J (1995) Positron emission tomography studies in patients with locally advanced and/or metastatic breast cancer: a method for early therapy evaluation? J Clin Oncol 13:1470–1477

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Julesz B (1981) Textons the elements of texture perception and their interactions. Nature 290(5802):91–97

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Kabus S, Netsch T, Fischer B, Modersitzki J (2004) B-spline registration of 3D images with Levenberg-Marquardt optimization. SPIE: Image Process 5370:304–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Kaiser WA, Fischer H, Vagner J, Selig M (2000) Robotic system for biopsy and therapy of breast lesions in a high-field whole-body magnet resonance tomography unit. Invest Radiol 35(8):513–519

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Kapur A, Krucker J, Astley O, Buckley D, Eberhard JW, Alyassin AM, Claus BE, Thomenius KE, Myers H, Rumsey M, Johnson RN, Karr S (2002) Fusion of digital mammography with breast ultrasound—a phantom study. In: Antonuk LE, Yaffe MJ (eds) Proeedings of SPIE medical imaging 2002: physics of medical imaging. San Diego 4682:526–537

  60. Kapur A, Carson PL, Eberhard J (2004) Combination of digital mammography with semi-automated 3D breast ultrasound. Technol Cancer Res Treat 3:325–334

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Kostelec P, Weaver J, Healy D (1998) Multiresolution elastic image registration. Med Phys 25(9):1593–1604

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Krishnan S, Chenevert TL, Helvie MA, Londy FL (1999) Linear motion correction in three dimensions applied to dynamic gadolinium enhanced breast imaging. Med Phys 26:707–714

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Krucker JF, Meyer CR, LeCarpentier GL, Fowlkes JB, Carson PL (2000) 3D spatial compounding of ultrasound images using image-based nonrigid registration. Ultrasound Med Biol 26(9):1475–1488

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Krucker JF, LeCarpentier GL, Fowlkes JB, Carson PL (2002) Rapid elastic image registration for 3-D ultrasound. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 21(11):1384–1394

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Kumar R, Hanna K, Asmuth JC, Bergen J, Hulka C, Kopans DB, Weisskoff R, Moore R (1996) Application of 3D registration for detecting lesions in magnetic resonance breast scans. In: Proceedings of SPIE: image processing, San Diego, pp 646–656

  66. Lau TK, Bischof WF (1991) Automated detection of breast tumors using the asymmetry approach. Comput Biomed Res 24(3):273–295

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Lee S, Wolberg G, Shin SY (1997) Scattered data interpolation with multilevel B-splines. IEEE Trans Vis Comp Graph 3(3):228–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Lester H, Arridge SR (1999) A survey of hierarchical non-linear medical image registration. Pattern Recognit 32(1):129–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Lind P, Igerc I, Beyer T, Reinprecht P, Hausegger K (2004) Advantages and limitations of FDG PET in the follow-up of breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 31(Suppl 1):S125–S134

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Lucht R, Knopp MV, Brix G (2000) Elastic matching of dynamic MR mammographic images. Magn Reson Med 43(1):9–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Maintz JBA, Viergever MA (1998) A survey of medical image registration. Med Image Anal 2(1):1–36

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Makela T, Clarysse P, Sipila O, Pauna N, Pham QC, Katila T, Magnin IE (2003) A review of cardiac image registration methods. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 21(9):1011–1021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Malur S, Wurdinger S, Moritz A, Michels W, Schneider A (2001) Comparison of written reports of mammography sonography and magnetic resonance mammography for preoperative evaluation of breast lesions with special emphasis on magnetic resonance mammography. Breast Cancer Res 3(1):55–60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Marti R, Zwiggelaar R, Rubin CME (2001) Automatic mammographic registration: towards the detection of abnormalities. Detection of linear structures in mammographic images. In: Medical image understanding analysis ’01 2001

  75. Marti R, Zwiggelaar R, Rubin CME, Denton E (2002) 2D–3D correspondence in mammography. In: Medical image understanding analysis ’02, pp 101–104

  76. Marti R, Rubin CME, Denton E, Zwiggelaar R (2002) Mammographic X-ray and MR correspondence. In: Peitgen H-O (ed) Proceedings of IWDM ’02, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

  77. Maurer C, Fizpatrick JM (1993) A review of medical image registration Interact. In: Maciunas (RJ) Image-guided Newrosurgery, AANS, Parkridge, pp 17–44

  78. Mazur AK, Mazur EJ, Gordon R (1993) Digital differential radiography (DDR): a new diagnostic procedure for locating neoplasms such as breast cancers in soft deformable tissues. Proc SPIE 1905:443–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Mendez AJ, Tahoces PG, Lado MJ, Souto M, Vidal JJ (1998) Computer-aided diagnosis: automatic detection of malignant masses in digitized mammograms. Med Phys 25(6):957–964

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Meyer CR, Boes JL, Kim B, Bland PH, Zasadny KR, Kison PV, Koral K, Frey KA, Wahl RL (1997) Demonstration of accuracy and clinical versatility of mutual information for automatic multimodality image fusion using affine and thin-plate spline warped geometric deformations. Med Image Anal 1(3):195–206

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Meyer CR, Boes JL, Kim B, Bland PH (1998) Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention evaluation of control point selection in automatic mutual information driven 3D warping, Cambridge, pp 944–951

  82. Meyer CR, Boes JL, Kim B, Bland PH, LeCarpentier GL, Fowlkes JB, Roubidoux MA, Carson PL (1999) Semiautomatic registration of volumetric ultrasound scans. Ultrasound Med Biol 25(3):339–347

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Miga MI (2003) A new approach to elastography using mutual information and finite elements. Phys Med Biol 48:467–480

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Moskalik A, Carson PL, Meyer CR, Fowlkes JB, Rubin JM, Roubidoux MA (1995) Registration of three-dimensional compound ultrasound scans of the breast for refraction and motion correction. Ultrasound Med Biol 21(6):769–778

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Moskowitz M (1995) Breast imaging. Saunders, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  86. Murthy K, Aznar M, Thompson CJ, Loutfi A, Lisbona R, Gagnon JH (2000) Results of preliminary clinical trials of the positron emission mammography system PEM-I: a dedicated breast imaging system producing glucose metabolic images using FDG. J Nucl Med 41:1851–1858

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Murthy K, Aznar M, Bergman AM, Thompson CJ, Robar JL, Lisbona R, Loutfi A, Gagnon JH (2000) Positron emission mammographic instrument: initial results. Radiology 215:280–285

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Neemuchwala HF, Hero AO, Carson PL (2005) Image registration using alpha-entropy measures and entropic graphs. Signal Processing, Special Issue on Content-based Visual Information Retrieval 85:277–296

    Google Scholar 

  89. NessAiver M, Fernandes C, Krebs T, Wong J, Severson M (1995) Three dimensional subtraction of pre- and post-contrast breast images with translational and rotational registration. In: Proceedings of 3rd scientific meeting of the international society for magnetic resonance in medicine, Nice, France, p 438

  90. NessAiver M, Krebs T, Wong J (1996) Improved registration for subtraction of pre- and post-contrast 3D breast images. In: Proceedings of 4th scientific meeting of the international society for magnetic resonance in medicine, New York, p 38

  91. Netsch T, Rosch P, van Muiswinkel A, Weese J (2001) Towards real-time multi-modality 3-D medical image registration. In: International conference on computer vision, Vancouver, pp 718–725

  92. Ojala T, Nappi J, Nevalainen O (2001) Accurate segmentation of the breast regions from digitized mammograms. Comput Med Imaging Graph 25:47–59

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Petroudi S, Brady M (2004) Textons contours and regions for improved mammogram registration digital mammography. In: IWDM 2004, June 2004, Springer, Chapel Hill

  94. Piron CA, Causer P, Jong R, Shumak R, Plewes DB (2003) A hybrid breast biopsy system combining ultrasound and MRI. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 22(9):1100–1110

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Pluim JPW, Maintz JBA, Viergever MA (2000) Interpolation artefacts in mutual information-based image registration. Comput Vis Image Underst 77(2):212–232

    Google Scholar 

  96. Press WH, Flannery BP, Teukolsky SA, Vetterling WT (1988) Numerical Recipes in C. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  97. Quon A, Gambhir SS (2005) FDG-PET and beyond: molecular breast cancer imaging. J Clin Oncol 23(8):1664–1673

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Raylman RR, Majewski S, Wojcik R, Weisenberger AG, Kross B, Popov V, Bishop HA (2000) The potential role of positron emission mammography for detection of breast cancer. A phantom study. Med Phys 27(8):1943–1953

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Reichenbach JR, Hopfe J, Bellemann ME, Kaiser WA (2002) Development and validation of an algorithm for registration of serial 3D MR breast data sets. Magn Reson Mater Phys Biol Med 14:249–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Richard F, Cohen LD (2003) A New Image Registration technique with free boundary constraints: application to mammography. Comput Vis Image Understand 89:166–196

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  101. Richard F, Graffigne C (2000) An image-matching model for the registration of temporal or bilateral mammogram pairs. In: Yaffe M (ed) 5th international workshop on digital mammography, Toronto, June 2000

  102. Rohlfing T, Maurer CR Jr (2001) Intensity-based non-rigid registration using adaptive multilevel free-form deformation with an incompressibility constraint. MICCAI 2001 LNCS 2208. pp 111–119

  103. Rohlfing T, Maurer CR Jr (2003) Nonrigid image registration in shared-memory multiprocessor environments with application to brains breasts and bees. IEEE Trans Info Tech Biol 7(1):16–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Rohlfing T, Maurer CR Jr, Bluemke DA, Jacobs MA (2003) Volume-preserving nonrigid registration of mr breast images using free-form deformation with an incompressibility constraint. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 22(6):730–741

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Rohling R, Gee A, Berman L (1998) Automatic registration of 3-D ultrasound images. Ultrasound Med Biol 24(6):841–854

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Rueckert D, Hayes C, Studholme C, Summers P, Leach M, Hawkes DJ (1998) Non-rigid registration of breast MR images using mutual information. In: MICCAI’98 lecture notes in computer science, Cambridge, pp 1144–1152

  107. Rueckert D, Sonoda LI, Hayes C, Hill DLG, Leach MO, Hawkes DJ (1999) Nonrigid registration using free-form deformations: application to breast MR images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 18(8):712–721

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Ruiter NV (2003) Registration of X-ray mammograms and MR-volumes of the female breast based on simulated mammographic deformation, University of Mannheim, Germany 2003

  109. Ruiter NV, Muller TO, Stotzka R, Gemmeke H, Reichenbach JR, Kaiser WA (2004) Registration of X-ray mammograms and MR-volumes of the female breast based on simulated mammographic deformation. In: Digital mammogrphy’04, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

  110. Sabel M, Aichinger H (1996) Recent developments in breast imaging. Phys Med Biol 43(3):315–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Sallam M (1997) Image unwarping and difference analysis: a technique for detecting abnormalities in mammograms, University of South Florida

  112. Sallam M, Bowyer K (1994) Registering time sequences of mammograms using a two-dimensional image unwarping technique. In: International workshop on digital mammography, York, England, pp 121–130

  113. Sallam M, Bowyer K (1996) Detecting abnormal densities in mammograms by comparison with previous screenings. In: Doi K, Giger ML, Nishikawa RM, Schmidt RA (eds) Digital mammogrphy’96. Elsevier, Amsterdam

  114. Samani A, Bishop J, Yaffe MJ, Plewes DB (2001) Biomechanical 3-D finite element modeling of the human breast using MRI data. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 20(4):271–279

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Sanjay-Gopal S, Chan HP, Wilson T, Helvie M, Petrick N, Sahiner B (1999) A regional registration technique for automated interval change analysis of breast lesions on mammograms. Med Phys 26(12):2669–2679

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Scheidhauer K, Walter C, Seemann MD (2004) FDG PET and other imaging modalities in the primary diagnosis of suspicious breast lesions. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 31(Suppl 1):S70–S79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Schnabel JA, Tanner C, Smith AC, Leach MO, Hayes C, Degenhard A, Hose R, Hill DLG, Hawkes DJ (2001) Validation of non-rigid registration using finite element methods Information processing in medical imaging, Davis CA, pp 344–357

  118. Seo B, Pisano E, Cho K, Cho P, Lee J, Kim S (2005) Low-dose multidetector dynamic CT in the breast preliminary study. Clin Imaging 29(3):172–178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Sivaramakrishna R (1997) Breast image registration using a textural transformation. University of Manitoba

  120. Sivaramakrishna R (2005) 3D breast image registration—a review. Technol Cancer Res Treat 4(1):1–10

    Google Scholar 

  121. Smith RA, Duffy SW, Gabe R, Tabar L, Yen MF, Chen HH (2004) The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: what have we learned? Radiol Clin North Am 42(5):793–806

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Studholme C, Hill DLG, Hawkes DJ (1999) An overlap invariant entropy measure of 3D medical image alignment. Pattern Recognit 32(1):71–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Suckling J, Parker J, Dance DR, Astley S, Hutt I, Boggis CRM, Ricketts I, Stamatakis E, Cerneaz N, Kok S-L, Taylor P, Betal D, Savage J (1994) The mammographic image analysis society digital mammogram database International workshop on digital mammography, York, England, pp 375–378

  124. Suri JS, Antloga L, Reden L (2001) BPAS: MR Breast Perfusion Analysis System Proceedings of the 14th Symposium in Computerized Based Medical Systems (CBMS) Bethesda MD IEEE Computer Society, pp 85-90

  125. Suri JS, Wilson DL, Laxminarayan S (2005) Handbook of medical image analysis, vol 3: registration models. International topics in biomedical engineering. Springer/Kluwer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, Dordrecht

  126. Suri JS, Guo Y, Sun Y, Danielson T, Janer R (2005) Combining adaptive segmentation approach for improving multi-resolution image registration on X-ray mammograms acquired using Fischer’s fused full field digital mammography and ultrasound system (FFDMUS). In: IASTED BioMED 2005, Feb 2005 Innsbruck, Austria

  127. Suri JS, Guo Y, Coad C, Danielson T, Janer R (2005) Image quality assessment via segmentation of breast lesion in X-ray and ultrasound phantom Images from Fischer’s FFDMUS system. Technol Cancer Res Treat 4(1):83–92

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Suri JS, Danielson T, Guo Y, Janer R (2005) Fischer’s fused full field digital mammography and ultrasound imaging system (FFDMUS). Stud Health Technol Inform 114:177–200

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. Suri JS, Rangayyan RM, Laxminarayan S (2006) Emerging technologies in breast imaging and its applications. American Scientific Publishers, Valencia

    Google Scholar 

  130. Szeliski R, Coughlan J (1994) Spline-based image registration Cambridge Research Lab 94/1 April 1994 http://www.citeseer.nj.nec.com/szeliski94splinebased.html

  131. Tanner C, Schnabel JA, Chung D, Clarkson MJ, Rueckert D, Hill DLG, Hawkes DJ (2000) Volume and shape preservation of enhancing lesions when applying nonrigid registration to a time series of contrast enhancing MR breast images. In: Proceedings of the MICCAI 2000. CDelp SL, Di-Gioia AM, Jaramaz B, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 327–337

  132. Tanner C, Degenhard A, Schnabel JA, Smith AC, Hayes C, Sonoda LI, Leach MO, Hose DR, Hill DLG, Hawkes DJ (2001) A method for the comparison of biomechanical breast models. In: MMBIA 2001

  133. Tanner C, Schnabel JA, Degenhard A, Smith AC, Hayes C, Leach MO, Hose DR, Hill DLG, Hawkes DJ (2002) Validation of volume-preserving non-rigid registration: application to contrast-enhanced MR-mammography. In: MICCAI 2002 LNCS, vol 2489. Springer, Tokyo, pp 307–314

  134. Townsend DW (2001) A combined PET-CT scanner: the choice. J Nucl Med 42:533–534

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. Tsao J (2003) Interpolation artifacts in multimodality image registration based on maximization of mutual information. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 22(7):854–864

    Article  PubMed  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  136. Undrill PE, Redpath TW, Gilbert FJ (1996) Reduction of movement artefacts in comparative 3D magnetic resonance (MR) breast imaging. Proc SPIE 2710:922–930

    Article  Google Scholar 

  137. Vujovic N, Brzakovic D, Fogarty K (1995) Detection of cancerous changes in mammograms using intensity and texture measures. Proc SPIE 2434:37–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  138. Vranjesevic D, Schiepers C, Silveman DH, Quon A, Villalpando J, Dahlbom M, Phelps ME, Czernin J (2003) Relation between 18F-FDG uptake and breast density in women with normal breast tissue. J Nucl Med 44(8):1238–1242

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. Vujovic N, Brzakovic D (1997) Establishing the correspondence between control points in pairs of mammographic images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 6(10):1388–1399

    Google Scholar 

  140. Weinreb JC, Newstead G (1995) MR imaging of the breast. Radiology 196(10):593–610

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  141. Wells W, Viola P, Atsumi H, Nakajima S, Kikinis R (1996) Multi-modal volume registration by maximization of mutual information. Med Image Anal 1(1):35–51. http://www.citeseer.nj.nec.com/article/wells96multimodal.html

  142. Wildes RP, Asmuth JC, Hunter DM, Kopans DB, Moore RH (1996) Change detection in serial mammograms for the early detection of breast cancer research report FR-0008. The National Information Display Laboratory, January 1996

  143. Wirth MA (1999) A nonrigid approach to medical image registration: matching images of the breast. RMIT University, Melbourne 1999

  144. Wirth MA, Narhan J, Gray D (2002) Nonrigid mammogram registration using mutual information. Proc SPIE 4684:562–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  145. Wirth MA, Narhan J, Gray D (2002) A model for nonrigid mammogram registration using mutual information. In: Digital mammography IWDM 2002, Bremen, Germany, pp 243–245

  146. Woods RP (2000) Handbook of medical imaging: processing and analysis validation of registration accuracy. Academic, New York, pp 491–497

    Google Scholar 

  147. Xiao G, Brady M, Noble JA, Burcher M, English R (2002) Nonrigid registration of 3-D free-hand ultrasound images of the breast. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 21(4):404–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  148. Yeung F, Levinson SF, Parker KJ (1998) Multilevel and motion model-based ultrasonic speckle tracking algorithms. Ultrasound Med Biol 24(3):427–441

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  149. Yin F, Giger M, Doi K, Metz CE, Vyborny C, Schmidt RA (1991) Computerized detection of masses in digital mammograms: analysis of bilateral-subtraction images. Med Phys 18:955–963

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  150. Yin F, Giger M, Doi K, Vyborny C, Schmidt RA (1994) Computerized detection of masses in digital mammograms: automated alignment of breast images and its effect on bilateral-subtraction technique. Med Phys 21(3):445–452

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  151. Zangheri B, Messa C, Picchio M, Gianolli L, Landoni C, Fazio F (2004) PET/CT and breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 31(Suppl 1):S135–S142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  152. Zhou X, Gordon R (1988) Geometric unwarping of digital subtraction mammography. In: Proceeding of vision interface, pp 25–30

  153. Zuo CS, Jiang A, Buff BL, Mahon TG, Wong TZ (1996) Automatic motion correction for breast MR imaging. Radiology 198(3):903–906

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  154. Zwiggelaar R, Astley SM, Boggis CRM, Taylor CJ (2004) Linear structures in mammographic images: detection and classification. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 23(9):1077–0186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, Kent State University, Kent, OH, 44242, USA

    Yujun Guo & Cheng-Chang Lu

  2. Synarc, Inc, San Fransisco, CA, 94105, USA

    Radhika Sivaramakrishna

  3. Biomedical Research Institute, Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID, 83209, USA

    Swamy Laxminarayan

  4. Biomedical Technologies, Inc., Westminster, CO, 80030, USA

    Jasjit S. Suri

Authors
  1. Yujun Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Radhika Sivaramakrishna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cheng-Chang Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jasjit S. Suri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Swamy Laxminarayan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yujun Guo.

Additional information

S. Laxminarayan died on September 29, 2005

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Guo, Y., Sivaramakrishna, R., Lu, CC. et al. Breast image registration techniques: a survey. Med Bio Eng Comput 44, 15–26 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-005-0016-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-005-0016-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation