BACKGROUND: In recent years, there has been a considerable research effort concerning the integration of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) into the external radiotherapy workflow motivated by the superior soft tissue contrast as compared to computed tomography. Image registration is a necessary step in many applications, e.g. in patient positioning and therapy response assessment with repeated imaging. In this study, we investigate the dependence between the registration accuracy and the size of the registration volume for a subvolume based rigid registration protocol for MR images of the prostate. METHODS: Ten patients were imaged four times each over the course of radiotherapy treatment using a T2 weighted sequence. The images were registered to each other using a mean square distance metric and a step gradient optimizer for registration volumes of different sizes. The precision of the registrations was evaluated using the center of mass distance between the manually defined prostates in the registered images. The optimal size of the registration volume was determined by minimizing the standard deviation of these distances. RESULTS: We found that prostate position was most uncertain in the anterior-posterior (AP) direction using traditional full volume registration. The improvement in standard deviation of the mean center of mass distance between the prostate volumes using a registration volume optimized to the prostate was 3.9 mm (p < 0.001) in the AP direction. The optimum registration volume size was 0 mm margin added to the prostate gland as outlined in the first image series. CONCLUSIONS: Repeated MR imaging of the prostate for therapy set-up or therapy assessment will both require high precision tissue registration. With a subvolume based registration the prostate registration uncertainty can be reduced down to the order of 1 mm (1 SD) compared to several millimeters for registration based on the whole pelvis.
BACKGROUND: In recent years, there has been a considerable research effort concerning the integration of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) into the external radiotherapy workflow motivated by the superior soft tissue contrast as compared to computed tomography. Image registration is a necessary step in many applications, e.g. in patient positioning and therapy response assessment with repeated imaging. In this study, we investigate the dependence between the registration accuracy and the size of the registration volume for a subvolume based rigid registration protocol for MR images of the prostate. METHODS: Ten patients were imaged four times each over the course of radiotherapy treatment using a T2 weighted sequence. The images were registered to each other using a mean square distance metric and a step gradient optimizer for registration volumes of different sizes. The precision of the registrations was evaluated using the center of mass distance between the manually defined prostates in the registered images. The optimal size of the registration volume was determined by minimizing the standard deviation of these distances. RESULTS: We found that prostate position was most uncertain in the anterior-posterior (AP) direction using traditional full volume registration. The improvement in standard deviation of the mean center of mass distance between the prostate volumes using a registration volume optimized to the prostate was 3.9 mm (p < 0.001) in the AP direction. The optimum registration volume size was 0 mm margin added to the prostate gland as outlined in the first image series. CONCLUSIONS: Repeated MR imaging of the prostate for therapy set-up or therapy assessment will both require high precision tissue registration. With a subvolume based registration the prostate registration uncertainty can be reduced down to the order of 1 mm (1 SD) compared to several millimeters for registration based on the whole pelvis.
Authors: Timo Mäkelä; Patrick Clarysse; Outi Sipilä; Nicoleta Pauna; Quoc Cuong Pham; Toivo Katila; Isabelle E Magnin Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Monique H P Smitsmans; Josien de Bois; Jan-Jakob Sonke; Anja Betgen; Lambert J Zijp; David A Jaffray; Joos V Lebesque; Marcel van Herk Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-11-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: B W Raaymakers; J J W Lagendijk; J Overweg; J G M Kok; A J E Raaijmakers; E M Kerkhof; R W van der Put; I Meijsing; S P M Crijns; F Benedosso; M van Vulpen; C H W de Graaff; J Allen; K J Brown Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2009-05-19 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: R W van der Put; E M Kerkhof; B W Raaymakers; I M Jürgenliemk-Schulz; J J W Lagendijk Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2009-11-11 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Young K Lee; Marc Bollet; Geoffrey Charles-Edwards; Maggie A Flower; Martin O Leach; Helen McNair; Elizabeth Moore; Carl Rowbottom; Steve Webb Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Monique H P Smitsmans; Jochem W H Wolthaus; Xavier Artignan; Josien de Bois; David A Jaffray; Joos V Lebesque; Marcel van Herk Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-10-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: J Boda-Heggemann; M Guckenberger; U Ganswindt; C Belka; H Wertz; M Blessing; F Wenz; M Fuss; F Lohr Journal: Radiologe Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 0.635
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: Matteo Maspero; Peter R Seevinck; Nicole J W Willems; Gonda G Sikkes; Geja J de Kogel; Hans C J de Boer; Jochem R N van der Voort van Zyp; Cornelis A T van den Berg Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-06-05 Impact factor: 3.481