OBJECTIVES: MRI is the preferred staging modality for rectal carcinoma patients. This work assesses the CT-MRI co-registration accuracy of four commercial rigid-body techniques for external beam radiotherapy treatment planning for patients treated in the prone position without fiducial markers. METHODS: 17 patients with biopsy-proven rectal carcinoma were scanned with CT and MRI in the prone position without the use of fiducial markers. A reference co-registration was performed by consensus of a radiologist and two physicists. This was compared with two automated and two manual techniques on two separate treatment planning systems. Accuracy and reproducibility were analysed using a measure of target registration error (TRE) that was based on the average distance of the mis-registration between vertices of the clinically relevant gross tumour volume as delineated on the CT image. RESULTS: An automated technique achieved the greatest accuracy, with a TRE of 2.3 mm. Both automated techniques demonstrated perfect reproducibility and were significantly faster than their manual counterparts. There was a significant difference in TRE between registrations performed on the two planning systems, but there were no significant differences between the manual and automated techniques. CONCLUSION: For patients with rectal cancer, MRI acquired in the prone treatment position without fiducial markers can be accurately registered with planning CT. An automated registration technique offered a fast and accurate solution with associated uncertainties within acceptable treatment planning limits.
OBJECTIVES: MRI is the preferred staging modality for rectal carcinomapatients. This work assesses the CT-MRI co-registration accuracy of four commercial rigid-body techniques for external beam radiotherapy treatment planning for patients treated in the prone position without fiducial markers. METHODS: 17 patients with biopsy-proven rectal carcinoma were scanned with CT and MRI in the prone position without the use of fiducial markers. A reference co-registration was performed by consensus of a radiologist and two physicists. This was compared with two automated and two manual techniques on two separate treatment planning systems. Accuracy and reproducibility were analysed using a measure of target registration error (TRE) that was based on the average distance of the mis-registration between vertices of the clinically relevant gross tumour volume as delineated on the CT image. RESULTS: An automated technique achieved the greatest accuracy, with a TRE of 2.3 mm. Both automated techniques demonstrated perfect reproducibility and were significantly faster than their manual counterparts. There was a significant difference in TRE between registrations performed on the two planning systems, but there were no significant differences between the manual and automated techniques. CONCLUSION: For patients with rectal cancer, MRI acquired in the prone treatment position without fiducial markers can be accurately registered with planning CT. An automated registration technique offered a fast and accurate solution with associated uncertainties within acceptable treatment planning limits.
Authors: E Kapiteijn; C A Marijnen; I D Nagtegaal; H Putter; W H Steup; T Wiggers; H J Rutten; L Pahlman; B Glimelius; J H van Krieken; J W Leer; C J van de Velde Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-08-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Wim Duthoy; Werner De Gersem; Koen Vergote; Tom Boterberg; Cristina Derie; Peter Smeets; Carlos De Wagter; Wilfried De Neve Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-11-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: I D Botterill; D M Blunt; P Quirke; D Sebag-Montefiore; P M Sagar; P J Finan; A G Chalmers Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 3.788
Authors: Bernhard Petersch; Joachim Bogner; Annette Fransson; Thomas Lorang; Richard Pötter Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Xiaofeng Yang; Peter Rossi; Tomi Ogunleye; David M Marcus; Ashesh B Jani; Hui Mao; Walter J Curran; Tian Liu Journal: Med Phys Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 4.071
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: Hualiang Zhong; Ning Wen; James J Gordon; Mohamed A Elshaikh; Benjamin Movsas; Indrin J Chetty Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2015-03-17 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Carri K Glide-Hurst; Eric S Paulson; Kiaran McGee; Neelam Tyagi; Yanle Hu; James Balter; John Bayouth Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-07 Impact factor: 4.071