PURPOSE: To evaluate the implications of differences between contours drawn manually and contours generated automatically by deformable image registration for four-dimensional (4D) treatment planning. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In 12 lung cancer patients intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) planning was performed for both manual contours and automatically generated ("auto") contours in mid and peak expiration of 4D computed tomography scans, with the manual contours in peak inspiration serving as the reference for the displacement vector fields. Manual and auto plans were analyzed with respect to their coverage of the manual contours, which were assumed to represent the anatomically correct volumes. RESULTS: Auto contours were on average larger than manual contours by up to 9%. Objective scores, D(2%) and D(98%) of the planning target volume, homogeneity and conformity indices, and coverage of normal tissue structures (lungs, heart, esophagus, spinal cord) at defined dose levels were not significantly different between plans (p = 0.22-0.94). Differences were statistically insignificant for the generalized equivalent uniform dose of the planning target volume (p = 0.19-0.94) and normal tissue complication probabilities for lung and esophagus (p = 0.13-0.47). Dosimetric differences >2% or >1 Gy were more frequent in patients with auto/manual volume differences > or =10% (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The applied deformable image registration algorithm produces clinically plausible auto contours in the majority of structures. At this stage clinical supervision of the auto contouring process is required, and manual interventions may become necessary. Before routine use, further investigations are required, particularly to reduce imaging artifacts.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the implications of differences between contours drawn manually and contours generated automatically by deformable image registration for four-dimensional (4D) treatment planning. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In 12 lung cancerpatients intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) planning was performed for both manual contours and automatically generated ("auto") contours in mid and peak expiration of 4D computed tomography scans, with the manual contours in peak inspiration serving as the reference for the displacement vector fields. Manual and auto plans were analyzed with respect to their coverage of the manual contours, which were assumed to represent the anatomically correct volumes. RESULTS: Auto contours were on average larger than manual contours by up to 9%. Objective scores, D(2%) and D(98%) of the planning target volume, homogeneity and conformity indices, and coverage of normal tissue structures (lungs, heart, esophagus, spinal cord) at defined dose levels were not significantly different between plans (p = 0.22-0.94). Differences were statistically insignificant for the generalized equivalent uniform dose of the planning target volume (p = 0.19-0.94) and normal tissue complication probabilities for lung and esophagus (p = 0.13-0.47). Dosimetric differences >2% or >1 Gy were more frequent in patients with auto/manual volume differences > or =10% (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The applied deformable image registration algorithm produces clinically plausible auto contours in the majority of structures. At this stage clinical supervision of the auto contouring process is required, and manual interventions may become necessary. Before routine use, further investigations are required, particularly to reduce imaging artifacts.
Authors: S Senan; J van Sörnsen de Koste; M Samson; H Tankink; P Jansen; P J Nowak; A D Krol; P Schmitz; F J Lagerwaard Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Yvette Seppenwoolde; Joos V Lebesque; Katrien de Jaeger; José S A Belderbos; Liesbeth J Boersma; Cees Schilstra; George T Henning; James A Hayman; Mary K Martel; Randall K Ten Haken Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Hasan Murshed; H Helen Liu; Zhongxing Liao; Jerry L Barker; Xiaochun Wang; Susan L Tucker; Anurag Chandra; Thomas Guerrero; Craig Stevens; Joe Y Chang; Melinda Jeter; James D Cox; Ritsuko Komaki; Radhe Mohan; Joe Y Change Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-03-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: H Helen Liu; Xiaochun Wang; Lei Dong; Qiuwen Wu; Zhongxing Liao; Craig W Stevens; Thomas M Guerrero; Ritsuko Komaki; James D Cox; Radhe Mohan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-03-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Gig S Mageras; Alex Pevsner; Ellen D Yorke; Kenneth E Rosenzweig; Eric C Ford; Agung Hertanto; Steven M Larson; D Michael Lovelock; Yusuf E Erdi; Sadek A Nehmeh; John L Humm; C Clifton Ling Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-11-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: M A Deeley; A Chen; R D Datteri; J Noble; A Cmelak; E Donnelly; A Malcolm; L Moretti; J Jaboin; K Niermann; Eddy S Yang; David S Yu; B M Dawant Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2013-05-17 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Salim Balik; Elisabeth Weiss; Nuzhat Jan; Nicholas Roman; William C Sleeman; Mirek Fatyga; Gary E Christensen; Cheng Zhang; Martin J Murphy; Jun Lu; Paul Keall; Jeffrey F Williamson; Geoffrey D Hugo Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2013-02-22 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jason K Molitoris; Tejan Diwanji; James W Snider; Sina Mossahebi; Santanu Samanta; Shahed N Badiyan; Charles B Simone; Pranshu Mohindra Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Mirek Fatyga; Nesrin Dogan; Elizabeth Weiss; William C Sleeman; Baoshe Zhang; William J Lehman; Jeffrey F Williamson; Krishni Wijesooriya; Gary E Christensen Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2015-02-04 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Ahmed R Eldesoky; Giulio Francolini; Mette S Thomsen; Esben S Yates; Tine B Nyeng; Carine Kirkove; Claus Kamby; Egil S Blix; Mette H Nielsen; Zahra Taheri-Kadkhoda; Martin Berg; Birgitte V Offersen Journal: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-02-06