Literature DB >> 20378271

Prostate localization on daily cone-beam computed tomography images: accuracy assessment of similarity metrics.

Jinkoo Kim1, Rabih Hammoud, Deepak Pradhan, Hualiang Zhong, Ryan Y Jin, Benjamin Movsas, Indrin J Chetty.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate different similarity metrics (SM) using natural calcifications and observation-based measures to determine the most accurate prostate and seminal vesicle localization on daily cone-beam CT (CBCT) images. METHODS AND MATERIALS: CBCT images of 29 patients were retrospectively analyzed; 14 patients with prostate calcifications (calcification data set) and 15 patients without calcifications (no-calcification data set). Three groups of test registrations were performed. Test 1: 70 CT/CBCT pairs from calcification dataset were registered using 17 SMs (6,580 registrations) and compared using the calcification mismatch error as an endpoint. Test 2: Using the four best SMs from Test 1, 75 CT/CBCT pairs in the no-calcification data set were registered (300 registrations). Accuracy of contour overlays was ranked visually. Test 3: For the best SM from Tests 1 and 2, accuracy was estimated using 356 CT/CBCT registrations. Additionally, target expansion margins were investigated for generating registration regions of interest.
RESULTS: Test 1-Incremental sign correlation (ISC), gradient correlation (GC), gradient difference (GD), and normalized cross correlation (NCC) showed the smallest errors (mu +/- sigma: 1.6 +/- 0.9 approximately 2.9 +/- 2.1 mm). Test 2-Two of the three reviewers ranked GC higher. Test 3-Using GC, 96% of registrations showed <3-mm error when calcifications were filtered. Errors were left/right: 0.1 +/- 0.5mm, anterior/posterior: 0.8 +/- 1.0mm, and superior/inferior: 0.5 +/- 1.1 mm. The existence of calcifications increased the success rate to 97%. Expansion margins of 4-10 mm were equally successful.
CONCLUSION: Gradient-based SMs were most accurate. Estimated error was found to be <3 mm (1.1 mm SD) in 96% of the registrations. Results suggest that the contour expansion margin should be no less than 4 mm. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20378271     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.09.068

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  11 in total

1.  A novel approach for establishing benchmark CBCT/CT deformable image registrations in prostate cancer radiotherapy.

Authors:  Jinkoo Kim; Sanath Kumar; Chang Liu; Hualiang Zhong; Deepak Pradhan; Mira Shah; Richard Cattaneo; Raphael Yechieli; Jared R Robbins; Mohamed A Elshaikh; Indrin J Chetty
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2013-10-31       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 2.  Fiducial marker guided prostate radiotherapy: a review.

Authors:  Angela G M O'Neill; Suneil Jain; Alan R Hounsell; Joe M O'Sullivan
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-09-23       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Prostate image-guided radiotherapy by megavolt cone-beam CT.

Authors:  Sergio Zucca; Barbara Carau; Ignazio Solla; Elisabetta Garibaldi; Paolo Farace; Giancarlo Lay; Gianfranco Meleddu; Pietro Gabriele
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2011-07-22       Impact factor: 3.621

4.  Calcium Phosphate Cement Paste Injection as a Fiducial Marker of Cervical Cancer.

Authors:  Ichiro Ogino; Masakazu Kitagawa; Shigenobu Watanabe; Hiroshi Yoshida; Masaharu Hata
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2018 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.155

Review 5.  Target margins in radiotherapy of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Slav Yartsev; Glenn Bauman
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-07-20       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  Development of CBCT-based prostate setup correction strategies and impact of rectal distension.

Authors:  Christine Boydev; Abdelmalik Taleb-Ahmed; Foued Derraz; Laurent Peyrodie; Jean-Philippe Thiran; David Pasquier
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2015-04-10       Impact factor: 3.481

7.  Clinical commissioning and use of the Novalis Tx linear accelerator for SRS and SBRT.

Authors:  Jinkoo Kim; Ning Wen; Jian-Yue Jin; Nicole Walls; Sangroh Kim; Haisen Li; Lei Ren; Yimei Huang; Anthony Doemer; Kathleen Faber; Tina Kunkel; Ahssan Balawi; Kimberly Garbarino; Kenneth Levin; Samir Patel; Munther Ajlouni; Brett Miller; Teamor Nurushev; Calvin Huntzinger; Raymond Schulz; Indrin J Chetty; Benjamin Movsas; Samuel Ryu
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2012-05-10       Impact factor: 2.102

8.  The potential failure risk of the cone-beam computed tomography-based planning target volume margin definition for prostate image-guided radiotherapy based on a prospective single-institutional hybrid analysis.

Authors:  Katsumi Hirose; Mariko Sato; Yoshiomi Hatayama; Hideo Kawaguchi; Fumio Komai; Makoto Sohma; Hideki Obara; Masashi Suzuki; Mitsuki Tanaka; Ichitaro Fujioka; Koji Ichise; Yoshihiro Takai; Masahiko Aoki
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2018-06-07       Impact factor: 3.481

9.  Novel Wavelet-Based Segmentation of Prostate CBCT Images with Implanted Calypso Transponders.

Authors:  Yingxia Liu; Ziad Saleh; Yulin Song; Maria Chan; Xiang Li; Chengyu Shi; Xin Qian; Xiaoli Tang
Journal:  Int J Med Phys Clin Eng Radiat Oncol       Date:  2017-08

10.  Comparison of automatic image registration uncertainty for three IGRT systems using a male pelvis phantom.

Authors:  Jeffrey Barber; Jonathan R Sykes; Lois Holloway; David I Thwaites
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2016-09-08       Impact factor: 2.102

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.