PURPOSE: To evaluate 2 deformable image registration (DIR) algorithms for the purpose of contour mapping to support image-guided adaptive radiation therapy with 4-dimensional cone-beam CT (4DCBCT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: One planning 4D fan-beam CT (4DFBCT) and 7 weekly 4DCBCT scans were acquired for 10 locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients. The gross tumor volume was delineated by a physician in all 4D images. End-of-inspiration phase planning 4DFBCT was registered to the corresponding phase in weekly 4DCBCT images for day-to-day registrations. For phase-to-phase registration, the end-of-inspiration phase from each 4D image was registered to the end-of-expiration phase. Two DIR algorithms-small deformation inverse consistent linear elastic (SICLE) and Insight Toolkit diffeomorphic demons (DEMONS)-were evaluated. Physician-delineated contours were compared with the warped contours by using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), average symmetric distance, and false-positive and false-negative indices. The DIR results are compared with rigid registration of tumor. RESULTS: For day-to-day registrations, the mean DSC was 0.75 ± 0.09 with SICLE, 0.70 ± 0.12 with DEMONS, 0.66 ± 0.12 with rigid-tumor registration, and 0.60 ± 0.14 with rigid-bone registration. Results were comparable to intraobserver variability calculated from phase-to-phase registrations as well as measured interobserver variation for 1 patient. SICLE and DEMONS, when compared with rigid-bone (4.1 mm) and rigid-tumor (3.6 mm) registration, respectively reduced the average symmetric distance to 2.6 and 3.3 mm. On average, SICLE and DEMONS increased the DSC to 0.80 and 0.79, respectively, compared with rigid-tumor (0.78) registrations for 4DCBCT phase-to-phase registrations. CONCLUSIONS: Deformable image registration achieved comparable accuracy to reported interobserver delineation variability and higher accuracy than rigid-tumor registration. Deformable image registration performance varied with the algorithm and the patient.
PURPOSE: To evaluate 2 deformable image registration (DIR) algorithms for the purpose of contour mapping to support image-guided adaptive radiation therapy with 4-dimensional cone-beam CT (4DCBCT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: One planning 4D fan-beam CT (4DFBCT) and 7 weekly 4DCBCT scans were acquired for 10 locally advanced non-small cell lung cancerpatients. The gross tumor volume was delineated by a physician in all 4D images. End-of-inspiration phase planning 4DFBCT was registered to the corresponding phase in weekly 4DCBCT images for day-to-day registrations. For phase-to-phase registration, the end-of-inspiration phase from each 4D image was registered to the end-of-expiration phase. Two DIR algorithms-small deformation inverse consistent linear elastic (SICLE) and Insight Toolkit diffeomorphic demons (DEMONS)-were evaluated. Physician-delineated contours were compared with the warped contours by using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), average symmetric distance, and false-positive and false-negative indices. The DIR results are compared with rigid registration of tumor. RESULTS: For day-to-day registrations, the mean DSC was 0.75 ± 0.09 with SICLE, 0.70 ± 0.12 with DEMONS, 0.66 ± 0.12 with rigid-tumor registration, and 0.60 ± 0.14 with rigid-bone registration. Results were comparable to intraobserver variability calculated from phase-to-phase registrations as well as measured interobserver variation for 1 patient. SICLE and DEMONS, when compared with rigid-bone (4.1 mm) and rigid-tumor (3.6 mm) registration, respectively reduced the average symmetric distance to 2.6 and 3.3 mm. On average, SICLE and DEMONS increased the DSC to 0.80 and 0.79, respectively, compared with rigid-tumor (0.78) registrations for 4DCBCT phase-to-phase registrations. CONCLUSIONS: Deformable image registration achieved comparable accuracy to reported interobserver delineation variability and higher accuracy than rigid-tumor registration. Deformable image registration performance varied with the algorithm and the patient.
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: Jana Fox; Eric Ford; Kristin Redmond; Jessica Zhou; John Wong; Danny Y Song Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-11-27 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jun Lu; Thomas M Guerrero; Peter Munro; Andrew Jeung; Pai-Chun M Chi; Peter Balter; X Ronald Zhu; Radhe Mohan; Tinsu Pan Journal: Med Phys Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Tobias Heimann; Bram van Ginneken; Martin A Styner; Yulia Arzhaeva; Volker Aurich; Christian Bauer; Andreas Beck; Christoph Becker; Reinhard Beichel; György Bekes; Fernando Bello; Gerd Binnig; Horst Bischof; Alexander Bornik; Peter M M Cashman; Ying Chi; Andrés Cordova; Benoit M Dawant; Márta Fidrich; Jacob D Furst; Daisuke Furukawa; Lars Grenacher; Joachim Hornegger; Dagmar Kainmüller; Richard I Kitney; Hidefumi Kobatake; Hans Lamecker; Thomas Lange; Jeongjin Lee; Brian Lennon; Rui Li; Senhu Li; Hans-Peter Meinzer; Gábor Nemeth; Daniela S Raicu; Anne-Mareike Rau; Eva M van Rikxoort; Mikaël Rousson; László Rusko; Kinda A Saddi; Günter Schmidt; Dieter Seghers; Akinobu Shimizu; Pieter Slagmolen; Erich Sorantin; Grzegorz Soza; Ruchaneewan Susomboon; Jonathan M Waite; Andreas Wimmer; Ivo Wolf Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2009-02-10 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Geoffrey D Hugo; Elisabeth Weiss; William C Sleeman; Salim Balik; Paul J Keall; Jun Lu; Jeffrey F Williamson Journal: Med Phys Date: 2017-02-02 Impact factor: 4.071