Literature DB >> 24440838

The distance discordance metric-a novel approach to quantifying spatial uncertainties in intra- and inter-patient deformable image registration.

Ziad H Saleh1, 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.   

Abstract

Previous methods to estimate the inherent accuracy of deformable image registration (DIR) have typically been performed relative to a known ground truth, such as tracking of anatomic landmarks or known deformations in a physical or virtual phantom. In this study, we propose a new approach to estimate the spatial geometric uncertainty of DIR using statistical sampling techniques that can be applied to the resulting deformation vector fields (DVFs) for a given registration. The proposed DIR performance metric, the distance discordance metric (DDM), is based on the variability in the distance between corresponding voxels from different images, which are co-registered to the same voxel at location (X) in an arbitrarily chosen 'reference' image. The DDM value, at location (X) in the reference image, represents the mean dispersion between voxels, when these images are registered to other images in the image set. The method requires at least four registered images to estimate the uncertainty of the DIRs, both for inter- and intra-patient DIR. To validate the proposed method, we generated an image set by deforming a software phantom with known DVFs. The registration error was computed at each voxel in the 'reference' phantom and then compared to DDM, inverse consistency error (ICE), and transitivity error (TE) over the entire phantom. The DDM showed a higher Pearson correlation (Rp) with the actual error (Rp ranged from 0.6 to 0.9) in comparison with ICE and TE (Rp ranged from 0.2 to 0.8). In the resulting spatial DDM map, regions with distinct intensity gradients had a lower discordance and therefore, less variability relative to regions with uniform intensity. Subsequently, we applied DDM for intra-patient DIR in an image set of ten longitudinal computed tomography (CT) scans of one prostate cancer patient and for inter-patient DIR in an image set of ten planning CT scans of different head and neck cancer patients. For both intra- and inter-patient DIR, the spatial DDM map showed large variation over the volume of interest (the pelvis for the prostate patient and the head for the head and neck patients). The highest discordance was observed in the soft tissues, such as the brain, bladder, and rectum, due to higher variability in the registration. The smallest DDM values were observed in the bony structures in the pelvis and the base of the skull. The proposed metric, DDM, provides a quantitative tool to evaluate the performance of DIR when a set of images is available. Therefore, DDM can be used to estimate and visualize the uncertainty of intra- and/or inter-patient DIR based on the variability of the registration rather than the absolute registration error.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24440838      PMCID: PMC3995002          DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/59/3/733

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  29 in total

1.  Bootstrap resampling for image registration uncertainty estimation without ground truth.

Authors:  Jan Kybic
Journal:  IEEE Trans Image Process       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 10.856

2.  Estimation of the uncertainty of elastic image registration with the demons algorithm.

Authors:  M Hub; C P Karger
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2013-04-15       Impact factor: 3.609

3.  Registration accuracy for MR images of the prostate using a subvolume based registration protocol.

Authors:  Joakim H Jonsson; Patrik Brynolfsson; Anders Garpebring; Mikael Karlsson; Karin Söderström; Tufve Nyholm
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2011-06-16       Impact factor: 3.481

4.  Adaptive radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer: initial clinical outcomes from a prospective trial.

Authors:  David L Schwartz; Adam S Garden; Jimmy Thomas; Yipei Chen; Yongbin Zhang; Jan Lewin; Mark S Chambers; Lei Dong
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2011-12-02       Impact factor: 7.038

5.  Intensity-modulated radiotherapy in the treatment of oropharyngeal cancer: an update of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center experience.

Authors:  Jeremy Setton; Nicola Caria; Jonathan Romanyshyn; Lawrence Koutcher; Suzanne L Wolden; Michael J Zelefsky; Nicholas Rowan; Eric J Sherman; Matthew G Fury; David G Pfister; Richard J Wong; Jatin P Shah; Dennis H Kraus; Weiji Shi; Zhigang Zhang; Karen D Schupak; Daphna Y Gelblum; Shyam D Rao; Nancy Y Lee
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2010-12-16       Impact factor: 7.038

6.  Relating dose outside the prostate with freedom from failure in the Dutch trial 68 Gy vs. 78 Gy.

Authors:  Marnix G Witte; Wilma D Heemsbergen; Román Bohoslavsky; Floris J Pos; Abrahim Al-Mamgani; Joos V Lebesque; Marcel van Herk
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2009-12-11       Impact factor: 7.038

7.  Voxel-based population analysis for correlating local dose and rectal toxicity in prostate cancer radiotherapy.

Authors:  Oscar Acosta; Gael Drean; Juan D Ospina; Antoine Simon; Pascal Haigron; Caroline Lafond; Renaud de Crevoisier
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2013-03-26       Impact factor: 3.609

8.  The utilization of consistency metrics for error analysis in deformable image registration.

Authors:  Edward T Bender; Wolfgang A Tomé
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2009-08-28       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  Comparison of 12 deformable registration strategies in adaptive radiation therapy for the treatment of head and neck tumors.

Authors:  Pierre Castadot; John Aldo Lee; Adriane Parraga; Xavier Geets; Benoît Macq; Vincent Grégoire
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2008-05-22       Impact factor: 6.280

10.  A multi-institution evaluation of deformable image registration algorithms for automatic organ delineation in adaptive head and neck radiotherapy.

Authors:  Nicholas Hardcastle; Wolfgang A Tomé; Donald M Cannon; Charlotte L Brouwer; Paul W H Wittendorp; Nesrin Dogan; Matthias Guckenberger; Stéphane Allaire; Yogish Mallya; Prashant Kumar; Markus Oechsner; Anne Richter; Shiyu Song; Michael Myers; Bülent Polat; Karl Bzdusek
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2012-06-15       Impact factor: 3.481

View more
  5 in total

1.  A multiple-image-based method to evaluate the performance of deformable image registration in the pelvis.

Authors:  Ziad Saleh; Maria Thor; Aditya P Apte; Gregory Sharp; Xiaoli Tang; Harini Veeraraghavan; Ludvig Muren; Joseph Deasy
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2016-07-29       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  MIRSIG position paper: the use of image registration and fusion algorithms in radiotherapy.

Authors:  Nicholas Lowther; Rob Louwe; Johnson Yuen; Nicholas Hardcastle; Adam Yeo; Michael Jameson
Journal:  Phys Eng Sci Med       Date:  2022-05-06

3.  An uncertainty metric to evaluate deformation vector fields for dose accumulation in radiotherapy.

Authors:  Akihiro Takemura; Akira Nagano; Hironori Kojima; Tomohiro Ikeda; Noriomi Yokoyama; Kosuke Tsukamoto; Kimiya Noto; Naoki Isomura; Shinichi Ueda; Hiroki Kawashima
Journal:  Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol       Date:  2018-05-31

4.  Towards mid-position based Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy using online magnetic resonance imaging guidance for central lung tumours.

Authors:  Hans Ligtenberg; Sara L Hackett; Laura G Merckel; Louk Snoeren; Charis Kontaxis; Cornel Zachiu; Gijsbert H Bol; Joost J C Verhoeff; Martin F Fast
Journal:  Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol       Date:  2022-05-24

5.  Performance variations among clinically available deformable image registration tools in adaptive radiotherapy - how should we evaluate and interpret the result?

Authors:  Ke Nie; Jean Pouliot; Eric Smith; Cynthia Chuang
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2016-03-08       Impact factor: 2.102

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.