PURPOSE: To quantify the uncertainties associated with incorporating diagnostic positron emission tomography/CT (PET/CT) and PET into the radiotherapy treatment-planning process using different image registration tools, including automated and manual rigid body registration methods, as well as deformable image registration. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The PET/CTs and treatment-planning CTs from 12 patients were used to evaluate image registration accuracy. The PET/CTs also were used without the contemporaneously acquired CTs to evaluate the registration accuracy of stand-alone PET. Registration accuracy for relevant normal structures was quantified using an overlap index and differences in the center of mass (COM) positions. For tumor volumes, the registration accuracy was measured using COM positions only. RESULTS: Registration accuracy was better with PET/CT than with PET alone. The COM displacements ranged from 3.2 +/- 0.6 mm (mean +/- 95% confidence interval, for brain) to 8.4 +/- 2.6 mm (spinal cord) for registration with PET/CT data, compared with 4.8 +/- 1.7 mm (brain) and 9.9 +/- 3.1 mm (spinal cord) with PET alone. Deformable registration improved accuracy, with minimum and maximum errors of 1.1 +/- 0.8 mm (brain) and 5.4 +/- 1.4 mm (mandible), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to incorporate PET and/or PET/CT acquired in diagnostic positions into the treatment-planning process through the use of advanced image registration algorithms, but precautions must be taken, particularly when delineating tumor volumes in the neck. Acquisition of PET/CT in the treatment-planning position would be the ideal method to minimize registration errors.
PURPOSE: To quantify the uncertainties associated with incorporating diagnostic positron emission tomography/CT (PET/CT) and PET into the radiotherapy treatment-planning process using different image registration tools, including automated and manual rigid body registration methods, as well as deformable image registration. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The PET/CTs and treatment-planning CTs from 12 patients were used to evaluate image registration accuracy. The PET/CTs also were used without the contemporaneously acquired CTs to evaluate the registration accuracy of stand-alone PET. Registration accuracy for relevant normal structures was quantified using an overlap index and differences in the center of mass (COM) positions. For tumor volumes, the registration accuracy was measured using COM positions only. RESULTS: Registration accuracy was better with PET/CT than with PET alone. The COM displacements ranged from 3.2 +/- 0.6 mm (mean +/- 95% confidence interval, for brain) to 8.4 +/- 2.6 mm (spinal cord) for registration with PET/CT data, compared with 4.8 +/- 1.7 mm (brain) and 9.9 +/- 3.1 mm (spinal cord) with PET alone. Deformable registration improved accuracy, with minimum and maximum errors of 1.1 +/- 0.8 mm (brain) and 5.4 +/- 1.4 mm (mandible), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to incorporate PET and/or PET/CT acquired in diagnostic positions into the treatment-planning process through the use of advanced image registration algorithms, but precautions must be taken, particularly when delineating tumor volumes in the neck. Acquisition of PET/CT in the treatment-planning position would be the ideal method to minimize registration errors.
Authors: A K Due; I R Vogelius; M C Aznar; S M Bentzen; A K Berthelsen; S S Korreman; C A Kristensen; L Specht Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2012-05-13 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Elizabeth M McKenzie; Anand Santhanam; Dan Ruan; Daniel O'Connor; Minsong Cao; Ke Sheng Journal: Med Phys Date: 2020-01-02 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: G G Hanna; J R Van Sörnsen De Koste; K J Carson; J M O'Sullivan; A R Hounsell; S Senan Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2011-01-11 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Abdallah S R Mohamed; Manee-Naad Ruangskul; Musaddiq J Awan; Charles A Baron; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Richard Castillo; Edward Castillo; Thomas M Guerrero; Esengul Kocak-Uzel; Jinzhong Yang; Laurence E Court; Michael E Kantor; G Brandon Gunn; Rivka R Colen; Steven J Frank; Adam S Garden; David I Rosenthal; Clifton D Fuller Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-11-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Yu Sun Lee; Kyoung Ju Kim; Seung Do Ahn; Eun Kyung Choi; Jong Hoon Kim; Sang-Wook Lee; Si Yeol Song; Sang Min Yoon; Young Seok Kim; Jin-Hong Park; Byung Chul Cho; Su Ssan Kim Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2013-04-29 Impact factor: 3.481