PURPOSE: This article presents a general procedural framework to assess the point-by-point precision in mapped dose associated with the intrinsic uncertainty of a deformable image registration (DIR) for any arbitrary patient. METHODS: Dose uncertainty is obtained via a three-step process. In the first step, for each voxel in an imaging pair, a cluster of points is obtained by an iterative DIR procedure. In the second step, the dispersion of the points due to the imprecision of the DIR method is used to compute the spatial uncertainty. Two different ways to quantify the spatial uncertainty are presented in this work. Method A consists of a one-dimensional analysis of the modules of the position vectors, whereas method B performs a more detailed 3D analysis of the coordinates of the points. In the third step, the resulting spatial uncertainty estimates are used in combination with the mapped dose distribution to compute the point-by-point dose standard deviation. The process is demonstrated to estimate the dose uncertainty induced by mapping a 62.6 Gy dose delivered on maximum exhale to maximum inhale of a ten-phase four-dimensional lung CT. RESULTS: For the demonstration lung image pair, the standard deviation of inconsistency vectors is found to be up to 9.2 mm with a mean sigma of 1.3 mm. This uncertainty results in a maximum estimated dose uncertainty of 29.65 Gy if method A is used and 21.81 Gy for method B. The calculated volume with dose uncertainty above 10.00 Gy is 602 cm3 for method A and 1422 cm3 for method B. CONCLUSIONS: This procedure represents a useful tool to evaluate the precision of a mapped dose distribution due to the intrinsic DIR uncertainty in a patient. The procedure is flexible, allowing incorporation of alternative intrinsic error models.
PURPOSE: This article presents a general procedural framework to assess the point-by-point precision in mapped dose associated with the intrinsic uncertainty of a deformable image registration (DIR) for any arbitrary patient. METHODS: Dose uncertainty is obtained via a three-step process. In the first step, for each voxel in an imaging pair, a cluster of points is obtained by an iterative DIR procedure. In the second step, the dispersion of the points due to the imprecision of the DIR method is used to compute the spatial uncertainty. Two different ways to quantify the spatial uncertainty are presented in this work. Method A consists of a one-dimensional analysis of the modules of the position vectors, whereas method B performs a more detailed 3D analysis of the coordinates of the points. In the third step, the resulting spatial uncertainty estimates are used in combination with the mapped dose distribution to compute the point-by-point dose standard deviation. The process is demonstrated to estimate the dose uncertainty induced by mapping a 62.6 Gy dose delivered on maximum exhale to maximum inhale of a ten-phase four-dimensional lung CT. RESULTS: For the demonstration lung image pair, the standard deviation of inconsistency vectors is found to be up to 9.2 mm with a mean sigma of 1.3 mm. This uncertainty results in a maximum estimated dose uncertainty of 29.65 Gy if method A is used and 21.81 Gy for method B. The calculated volume with dose uncertainty above 10.00 Gy is 602 cm3 for method A and 1422 cm3 for method B. CONCLUSIONS: This procedure represents a useful tool to evaluate the precision of a mapped dose distribution due to the intrinsic DIR uncertainty in a patient. The procedure is flexible, allowing incorporation of alternative intrinsic error models.
Authors: Thomas Rockwell Mackie; Jeff Kapatoes; Ken Ruchala; Weiguo Lu; Chuan Wu; Gustavo Olivera; Lisa Forrest; Wolfgang Tome; Jim Welsh; Robert Jeraj; Paul Harari; Paul Reckwerdt; Bhudatt Paliwal; Mark Ritter; Harry Keller; Jack Fowler; Minesh Mehta Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: A Pevsner; B Davis; S Joshi; A Hertanto; J Mechalakos; E Yorke; K Rosenzweig; S Nehmeh; Y E Erdi; J L Humm; S Larson; C C Ling; G S Mageras Journal: Med Phys Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Rojano Kashani; Martina Hub; James M Balter; Marc L Kessler; Lei Dong; Lifei Zhang; Lei Xing; Yaoqin Xie; David Hawkes; Julia A Schnabel; Jamie McClelland; Sarang Joshi; Quan Chen; Weiguo Lu Journal: Med Phys Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Amy E Kerdok; Stephane M Cotin; Mark P Ottensmeyer; Anna M Galea; Robert D Howe; Steven L Dawson Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: He Wang; Lei Dong; Jennifer O'Daniel; Radhe Mohan; Adam S Garden; K Kian Ang; Deborah A Kuban; Mark Bonnen; Joe Y Chang; Rex Cheung Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2005-06-01 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Christopher L Williams; Pankaj Mishra; Joao Seco; Sara St James; Raymond H Mak; Ross I Berbeco; John H Lewis Journal: Med Phys Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Alexandra R Cunliffe; Clay Contee; Samuel G Armato; Bradley White; Julia Justusson; Renuka Malik; Hania A Al-Hallaq Journal: Med Phys Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Ziad H Saleh; Aditya P Apte; Gregory C Sharp; Nadezhda P Shusharina; Ya Wang; Harini Veeraraghavan; Maria Thor; Ludvig P Muren; Shyam S Rao; Nancy Y Lee; Joseph O Deasy Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2014-01-20 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Daniella Fabri; Valentina Zambrano; Amon Bhatia; Hugo Furtado; Helmar Bergmann; Markus Stock; Christoph Bloch; Carola Lütgendorf-Caucig; Supriyanto Pawiro; Dietmar Georg; Wolfgang Birkfellner; Michael Figl Journal: Z Med Phys Date: 2013-08-19 Impact factor: 4.820