X. Zhang, C. OConnor, A. Castelo, M. Woodland, B. Daoud, I. Paolucci, J. Albuquerque, M. A. Altaie, N. Siddiqi, A. Patel, B. Odisio, K. Brock
BioDeformUNet achieved a similar performance to the biomechanical model-based algorithm but required fewer computational operations, resulting in a 34× speedup in DVF computation.
Purpose: To build a 3D U-Net model, BioDeformUNet, to predict the deformation vector field (DVF) of the liver in near real-time, for efficient intra-procedural evaluation of the minimal ablative margin (MAM). Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included 170 contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) image pairs from 157 patients who underwent liver ablation treatment between 2020-2024. Each data instance included one pre-ablation CECT (pre-CECT) and one post-ablation CECT (post-CECT). BioDeformUNet was trained under the guidance of DVFs generated by a biomechanical model-based deformable image registration (DIR) algorithm using a loss function that focused on large liver deformations. Data were split patient-wise into training (92-93 patients), validation (23-24 patients), and testing sets (42 patients). We compared our performance with two deep learning-based DIR methods: VoxelMorph and VFA. Evaluation metrics included: target registration error (TRE), Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), Minimum Ablation Margin (MAM), and inference time. For BioDeformUNet, we additionally evaluated the accuracy of the deformed tumor center-of-mass mapping by comparing the predicted tumor center location with that generated by Morfeus. A mapping error less than 3.0 mm (corresponding to the voxel size) was considered accurate. We used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test to assess the significancy of each test result. Our code is available at https://github.com/XinyueZhang831/BioDeformUNET. Results: The TRE of BioDeformUNet was not significantly different from Morfeus (3.31 BioDeformUNet; 3.23 Morfeus; p-value=0.41). The BioDeformUNet DVF magnitude was within 3.0 mm of Morfeus DVF for an average of 91.9% of the voxels. Tumor mapping errors greater than 3.0 mm occurred in only 8 cases. The inference time of BioDeformUNet was 0.6s per image pair, 0.2s for VoxelMorph, 0.3s for VFA, and 20.2s for Morfeus. Conclusion: BioDeformUNet achieved a similar performance to the biomechanical model-based algorithm but required fewer computational operations, resulting in a 34 times speedup in DVF computation.