Semiautomatic 3-D prostate segmentation from TRUS images using spherical harmonics

Prostate brachytherapy quality assessment procedure should be performed while the patient is still on the operating table since this would enable physicians to implant additional seeds immediately into the prostate if necessary thus reducing the costs and increasing patient outcome. Seed placement procedure is readily performed under fluoroscopy and ultrasound guidance. Therefore, it has been proposed that seed locations be reconstructed from fluoroscopic images and prostate boundaries be identified in ultrasound images to perform dosimetry in the operating room. However, there is a key hurdle that needs to be overcome to perform the ultrasound and fluoroscopy-based dosimetry: it is highly time-consuming for physicians to outline prostate boundaries in ultrasound images manually, and there is no method that enables physicians to identify three-dimensional (3-D) prostate boundaries in postimplant ultrasound images in a fast and robust fashion. In this paper, we propose a new method where the segmentation is defined in an optimization framework as fitting the best surface to the underlying images under shape constraints. To derive these constraints, we modeled the shape of the prostate using spherical harmonics of degree eight and performed statistical analysis on the shape parameters. After user initialization, our algorithm identifies the prostate boundaries on the average in 2 min. For algorithm validation, we collected 30 postimplant prostate volume sets, each consisting of axial transrectal ultrasound images acquired at 1-mm increments. For each volume set, three experts outlined the prostate boundaries first manually and then using our algorithm. By treating the average of manual boundaries as the ground truth, we computed the segmentation error. The overall mean absolute distance error was 1.26 +/- 0.41 mm while the percent volume overlap was 83.5 +/- 4.2. We found the segmentation error to be slightly less than the clinically-observed interobserver variability.