Intensity Standardization of Skeleton in Follow-Up Whole-Body MRI

  • Jakub CerankaEmail author
  • Sabrina Verga
  • Frédéric Lecouvet
  • Thierry Metens
  • Johan de Mey
  • Jef Vandemeulebroucke
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11397)


The value of whole-body MRI is constantly growing and is currently employed in several bone pathologies including diagnosis and prognosis of multiple myeloma, musculoskeletal imaging and evaluation of treatment response assessment in bone metastases. Intra-patient follow-up MR images acquired over time do not only suffer from spatial misalignments caused by change in patient positioning and body composition, but also intensity inhomogeneities, making the absolute MR intensity values inherently non-comparable. The non-quantitative nature of whole-body MRI makes it difficult to derive reproducible measurement and limits the use of treatment response maps. In this work, we have investigated and compared the performance of several standardization algorithms for skeletal tissue in anatomical and diffusion-weighted whole-body MRI. The investigated method consists of two steps. First, the follow-up whole-body image is spatially registered to a baseline image using B-spline deformable registration. Secondly, an intensity standardization algorithm based on a histogram matching is applied to the follow-up image. Additionally, the use of a skeleton mask was introduced, in order to focus the accuracy of algorithms on a tissue of interest. A linear piecewise matching method using masked skeletal region showed a superior performance in comparison to the other evaluated intensity standardization methods. The proposed work helps to overcome the non-quantitative nature of whole-body MRI images, allowing for extraction of important image parameters, visualization of whole-body MR treatment response maps and assessment of severity of bone pathology based on MR intensity profile.


Whole-body MRI Intensity standardization Skeletal imaging 


  1. 1.
    Baur-Melnyk, A., Buhmann, S., Dürr, H., Reiser, M.: Role of MRI for the diagnosis and prognosis of multiple myeloma. Eur. J. Radiol. 55(1), 56–63 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blackledge, M.D., et al.: Assessment of treatment response by total tumor volume and global apparent diffusion coefficient using diffusion-weighted MRI in patients with metastatic bone disease: a feasibility study. PLoS ONE 9(4), e91779 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Darge, K., Jaramillo, D., Siegel, M.J.: Whole-body MRI in children: current status and future applications. Eur. J. Radiol. 68(2), 289–298 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fedorov, A., et al.: 3D slicer as an image computing platform for the quantitative imaging network. Magn. Reson. Imaging 30(9), 1323–1341 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jäger, F., Hornegger, J.: Nonrigid registration of joint histograms for intensity standardization in magnetic resonance imaging. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 28(1), 137–150 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Karlsson, A., et al.: Automatic and quantitative assessment of regional muscle volume by multi-atlas segmentation using whole-body water-fat MRI. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 41(6), 1558–1569 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Klein, S., Staring, M., Murphy, K., Viergever, M.A., Pluim, J.P.: Elastix: a toolbox for intensity-based medical image registration. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 29(1), 196–205 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lecouvet, F.E., et al.: Can whole-body magnetic resonance imaging with diffusion-weighted imaging replace Tc 99m bone scanning and computed tomography for single-step detection of metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer? Eur. Urol. 62(1), 68–75 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Maes, F., Collignon, A., Vandermeulen, D., Marchal, G., Suetens, P.: Multimodality image registration by maximization of mutual information. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 16(2), 187–198 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nyúl, L.G., Udupa, J.K., Zhang, X.: New variants of a method of MRI scale standardization. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 19(2), 143–150 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Padhani, A.R., Makris, A., Gall, P., Collins, D.J., Tunariu, N., de Bono, J.S.: Therapy monitoring of skeletal metastases with whole-body diffusion MRI. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 39(5), 1049–1078 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pasoglou, V., et al.: Whole-body 3D T1-weighted MR imaging in patients with prostate cancer: feasibility and evaluation in screening for metastatic disease. Radiology 275(1), 155–166 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Qualter, J., et al.: The biodigital human: a web-based 3D platform for medical visualization and education. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 173, 359–361 (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Robitaille, N., Mouiha, A., Crépeault, B., Valdivia, F., Duchesne, S.: Tissue-based MRI intensity standardization: application to multicentric datasets. J. Biomed. Imaging 2012, 4 (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rueckert, D., Sonoda, L.I., Hayes, C., Hill, D.L., Leach, M.O., Hawkes, D.J.: Nonrigid registration using free-form deformations: application to breast MR images. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 18(8), 712–721 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shapiro, S.S., Wilk, M.B.: An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52(3/4), 591–611 (1965)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Strand, R., et al.: A concept for holistic whole body MRI data analysis Imiomics. PloS one 12(2), e0169966 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tustison, N.J., et al.: N4ITK: improved N3 bias correction. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 29(6), 1310–1320 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jakub Ceranka
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Sabrina Verga
    • 1
    • 3
  • Frédéric Lecouvet
    • 4
  • Thierry Metens
    • 5
  • Johan de Mey
    • 6
  • Jef Vandemeulebroucke
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Electronics and Informatics (ETRO)Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB)BrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.imecLeuvenBelgium
  3. 3.Department of Electronics, Information and BioengineeringPolitecnico di MilanoMilanItaly
  4. 4.Institut de Recherche Experimentale et Clinique (IREC)Université catholique de LouvainLouvain-la-NeuveBelgium
  5. 5.Department of Radiology, ULB-Hôpital ErasmeUniversité Libre de Bruxelles (ULB)BrusselsBelgium
  6. 6.Department of RadiologyUniversitair Ziekenhuis BrusselBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations