Advertisement

A novel finite element model–based navigation system–supported workflow for breast tumor excision

  • Dominik EsslingerEmail author
  • Philipp Rapp
  • Luzia Knödler
  • Heike Preibsch
  • Cristina Tarín
  • Oliver Sawodny
  • Sara Y. Brucker
  • Markus Hahn
Original Article
  • 64 Downloads

Abstract

In the case of female breast cancer, a breast-conserving excision is often desirable. This surgery is based on preoperatively gathered MRI, mammography, and sonography images. These images are recorded in multiple patient positions, e. g., 2D mammography images in standing position with a compressed breast and 3D MRI images in prone position. In contrast, the surgery happens in supine or beach chair position. Due to these different perspectives and the flexible, thus challenging, breast tissue, the excision puts high demands on the physician. Therefore, this publication presents a novel eight-step excision support workflow that can be used to include information captured preoperatively through medical imaging based on a finite element (FE) model. In addition, an indoor positioning system is integrated in the workflow in order to track surgical devices and the sonography transducer during surgery. The preoperative part of the navigation system–supported workflow is outlined exemplarily based on first experimental results including 3D scans of a patient in different patient positions and her MRI images.

Graphical Abstract

Finite Element model based navigation system supported workflow for breast tumor excision is based on eight steps and allows inclusion of information from medical images recorded in multiple patient positions.

Keywords

Breast tumors Image-guided surgery Lumpectomy Finite element analysis Medical imaging 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Written informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study in accordance with the approval of the Ethical Committee of the Faculty of Medicine at the University Hospital Tübingen, Germany.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Aesculap AG (2018) OrthoPilot®; – most advanced, reliable and frequently used orthopaedic navigation system. https://www.bbraun.com/en/products-and-therapies/orthopaedic-joint-replacement/orthopilot.html/orthopilot.html
  2. 2.
    Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie e.V. Diagnosis and treatment of patients with primary and metastatic breast cancer. https://www.ago-online.de/fileadmin/downloads/leitlinien/mamma/2017-03/AGO_englisch/PDF_Gesamtdatei_englisch/Updated
  3. 3.
    Aspert N, Santa-Cruz D, Ebrahimi T (2002) MESH: measuring errors between surfaces using the Hausdorff distance. In: Proceedings. IEEE international conference on multimedia and expo, vol 1, pp 705–708Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Azar FS, Metaxas DN, Schnall MD (2002) Methods for modeling and predicting mechanical deformations of the breast under external perturbations. Med Image Anal 6(1):1–27Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Besl PJ, McKay ND (Feb 1992) A method for registration of 3-D shapes. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 14(2):239–256Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Breastcancer.org. (2018) U.S. Breast Cancer Statistics. http://www.breastcancer.org/symptoms/understand_bc/statistics
  7. 7.
    Cai K, Yang R, Lin Q, Wang Z (2016) Tracking multiple surgical instruments in a near-infrared optical system, vol 21. PMID: 27973965Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chatrasingh M, Suthakorn J (2014) Toward biomimic breast deformable model for robotic breast biopsy navigation development. In: 2014 IEEE international conference on robotics and biomimetics (ROBIO 2014), pp 495–600Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen Y, Medioni G (1992) Object modelling by registration of multiple range images. Image Vis Comput 10(3):145–155Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chung J, Rajagopal V, Nielsen PMF, Nash MP (2008) A biomechanical model of mammographic compressions. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 7(1):43–52Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Danch-Wierzchowska M, Borys D, Bobek-Bilewicz B, Jarzab M, Swierniak A (2016) Simplification of breast deformation modelling to support breast cancer treatment planning. Biocybern Biomed Eng 36:531–536, 12Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dronkers DJ, Hendriks JHCL, Holland R, Rosenbusch G (2002) The practice of mammography: pathology, technique, interpretation, adjunct modalities Thieme Medical PublishersGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eder M, Raith S, Jalali J, Volf A, Settles M, Machens H-G, Kovacs L (2014) Comparison of different material models to simulate 3-D breast deformations using finite element analysis. Ann Biomed Eng 42 (4):843–857Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eisemann N, Waldmann A, Katalinic A (2013) Epidemiology of breast cancer – current figures and trends. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 73(2):130–135Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Freesmeyer M, Winkens T, Opfermann T, Elsner P, Runnebaum I, Darr A (2014) Real-time ultrasound and freehand-SPECT. Experiences with sentinel lymph node mapping. Nuklearmedizin 53(6):259–264Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Georgii J, Eder M, Bürger K, Klotz S, Ferstl F, Kovacs L, Westermann R (2014) A computational tool for preoperative breast augmentation planning in aesthetic plastic surgery. IEEE J Biomed Health Inf 18(3):907–919Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Han L, Hipwell JH, Tanner C, Taylor Z, Mertzanidou T, Cardoso J, Ourselin S, Hawkes DJ (2012) Development of patient-specific biomechanical models for predicting large breast deformation. Phys Med Biol 57(2):455–472Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Heywang-Köbrunner SH, Schreer I, Barter S (2014) Diagnostic breast imaging: mammography, sonography, magnetic resonance imaging, and interventional procedures. Thieme, 3rd (edn)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hipwell JH, Vavourakis V, Han L, Mertzanidou T, Eiben B, Hawkes DJ (2016) A review of biomechanically informed breast image registration. Phys Med Biol 61(2):R1Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hopp T, Dietzel M, Baltzer P, Kreisel P, Kaiser W, Gemmeke H, Ruiter N (2013) Automatic multimodal 2D/3D breast image registration using biomechanical FEM models and intensity-based optimization. Med Image Anal 17(2):209–218Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lasso A, Heffter T, Rankin A, Pinter C, Ungi T, Fichtinger G (2014) PLUS: open-source toolkit for ultrasound-guided intervention systems. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 61(10):2527–2537Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lee CH, Dershaw DD, Kopans D, Evans P, Monsees B, Monticciolo D, Brenner RJ, Bassett L, Berg W, Feig S, Hendrick E, Mendelson E, D’Orsi C, Sickles E, Burhenne LW (2010) Breast cancer screening with imaging: recommendations from the Society of Breast Imaging and the ACR on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer. J Am Coll Radiol 7(1):18–27Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mainetti L, Patrono L, Sergi I (2014) A survey on indoor positioning systems. In: 2014 22nd International Conference on Software, Telecommunications and Computer Networks (SoftCOM), pp 111–120Google Scholar
  24. 24.
  25. 25.
    Nadeau C, Ren H, Krupa A, Dupont P (Jan 2015) Intensity-based visual servoing for instrument and tissue tracking in 3D ultrasound volumes. IEEE Trans Autom Sci Eng 12(1):367–371Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nothacker M, Duda V, Hahn M, Warm M, Degenhardt F, Madjar H, Weinbrenner S, Albert U-S (2009) Early detection of breast cancer: benefits and risks of supplemental breast ultrasound in asymptomatic women with mammographically dense breast tissue. A systematic review. BMC Cancer 9(1):335Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pathmanathan P, Gavaghan DJ, Whiteley JP, Chapman SJ, Brady JM (2008) Predicting tumor location by modeling the deformation of the breast. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 55(10):2471–2480Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pianigiani S, Ruggiero L, Innocenti B (2015) An anthropometric-based subject-specific finite element model of the human breast for predicting large deformations. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 3(201):1–9Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rajagopal V, Chung J, Nielsen PMF, Nash MP (2006) Finite element modelling of breast biomechanics: directly calculating the reference state. In: 2006 international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society, pp 420–423Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rajagopal V, Lee A, Chung J-H, Warren R, Highnam RP, Nash MP, Nielsen PMF (2008) Creating individual-specific biomechanical models of the breast for medical image analysis. Acad Radiol 15(11):1425–1436Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rajagopal V, Nielsen PMF, Nash MP (2010) Modeling breast biomechanics for multi-modal image analysis – successes and challenges. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Syst Biol Med 2(3):293–304Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rapp P, Hägele L, Sawodny O, Tarín C (2014) Characterization of a 6 DOF acoustic-inertial navigation system for minimally-invasive surgery. In: 2014 13th international conference on control automation robotics vision (ICARCV), pp 1823–1828Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rapp P, Sawodny O, Tarín C, Pech CR, Mischinger J, Schwentner C (2014) A concept for a novel surgical navigation system. In: 2014 IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics (SMC), pp 3884–3889Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Richter V, Hatterman V, Preibsch H, Bahrs SD, Hahn M, Nikolaou K, Wiesinger B (2017) Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in patients with MRI contraindications. Acta RadiologicaGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ruiter NV, Stotzka R, Müller TO, Gemmeke H, Reichenbach JR, Kaiser WA (2006) Model-based registration of X-ray mammograms and MR images of the female breast. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 53(1):204–211Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Shih T-C, Chen J-H, Liu D, Nie K, Sun L, Lin M, Chang D, Nalcioglu O, Su M-Y (2010) Computational simulation of breast compression based on segmented breast and fibroglandular tissues on magnetic resonance images. Phys Med Biol 55(14):4153–4168Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C (2011) TNM classification of malignant tumours. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    SurgicEye GmbH (2018) SurgicEye – declipse®;SPECT Imaging Probe. http://www.surgiceye.com/for-healthcare-professionals/declipsespect-imaging-probe/
  39. 39.
    Tanaiutchawoot N, Treepong B, Wiratkapan C, Suthakorn J (2014) A path generation algorithm for biopsy needle insertion in a robotic breast biopsy navigation system. In: 2014 IEEE international conference on robotics and biomimetics (ROBIO 2014), pp 398–403Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tanner C, Schnabel JA, Hill DLG, Hawkes DJ, Leach MO, Hose DR (2006) Factors influencing the accuracy of biomechanical breast models. Med Phys 33(6 Part 1):1758–1769Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tielens LKP, Damen RBCC, Lerou JGC, Scheffer G-J, Bruhn J (2014) Ultrasound-guided needle handling using a guidance positioning system in a phantom. Anaesthesia 69(1):24–31Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Treepong B, Tanaiutchawoot N, Wiratkapun C, Suthakorn J (2014) On the design and development of a breast biopsy navigation system: path generation algorithm and system with its GUI evaluation. In: IEEE-EMBS international conference on biomedical and health informatics (BHI), pp 273–276Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ungi T, Gauvin G, Lasso A, Yeo CT, Pezeshki P, Vaughan T, Carter K, Rudan J, Engel CJ, Fichtinger G (2016) Navigated breast tumor excision using electromagnetically tracked ultrasound and surgical instruments. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 63(3):600–606Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Vavourakis V, Eiben B, Hipwell JH, Williams NR, Keshtgar M, Hawkes DJ (2016) Multiscale mechano-biological finite element modelling of oncoplastic breast surgery–numerical study towards surgical planning and cosmetic outcome prediction. PLOS One 11(7):1–27, 07Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, Causer PA, Zubovits JT, Jong RA, Cutrara MR, DeBoer G, Yaffe MJ, Messner SJ, Meschino WS, Piron CA, Narod SA (2004) Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA 292 (11):1317–1325Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Yin HM, Sun LZ, Wang G, Yamada T, Wang J, Vannier MW (2004) ImageParser: a tool for finite element generation from three-dimensional medical images. BioMed Eng OnLine 3(1):31Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Medical and Biological Engineering 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for System DynamicsUniversity of StuttgartStuttgartGermany
  2. 2.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyEberhard-Karls-Universität TübingenTübingenGermany
  3. 3.Department of Women’s HealthResearch Centre for Women’s HealthTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations