. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Dec 16.

Published in final edited form as: Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng. 2013 Mar 8;8671:86710A. doi: 10.1117/12.2007610

Table 1.

State-of-the-art MRI-TRUS fusion methods indicating the commercial system (where available), technical work, whether each method requires volumetric (3D) or planar (2D) imagery, the type of manual intervention required, the number of studies, and the reported root mean square error (RMSE). Direct comparison between RMSE for different systems is not possible as different internal fiducials (or in some cases phantoms) were used to evaluate each method.

Commercial System	Technical Work	2D/3D	Intervention	Studies	Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE)
Urostation	Reynier et. al.²⁰	3D	Manual prostate segmentation on TRUS	11	2.07 ± 1.57 mm (urethra) 1.11 ± 0.54 mm (prostate 1.11 ± 0.54 mm (prostate
ProFuse	Narayanan et. al.²¹	3D	Semi-automated prostate segmentation on TRUS	2	3.06±1.41 mm (phantom)
ProFuse	Karnik et. al.²²	3D	Semi-automated prostate segmentation on TRUS	16	2.13 ± 0.80 mm
UroNav	Xu et.al.²³	3D	Manual refinement of prostate segmentation on TRUS	20	2.3 ± 0.9 mm (phantom)
-	Hu et.al.²⁴	3D	Manual identification of prostate apex and base on TRUS, adjustment of filter weights	8	2.40 mm (median)
-	Mitra et.al.¹⁸	2D	Manual prostate segmentation on TRUS	20	1.60 ± 1.17 mm