Literature DB >> 24877797

The impact of cine EPID image acquisition frame rate on markerless soft-tissue tracking.

Stephen Yip1, Joerg Rottmann1, Ross Berbeco1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Although reduction of the cine electronic portal imaging device (EPID) acquisition frame rate through multiple frame averaging may reduce hardware memory burden and decrease image noise, it can hinder the continuity of soft-tissue motion leading to poor autotracking results. The impact of motion blurring and image noise on the tracking performance was investigated.
METHODS: Phantom and patient images were acquired at a frame rate of 12.87 Hz with an amorphous silicon portal imager (AS1000, Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA). The maximum frame rate of 12.87 Hz is imposed by the EPID. Low frame rate images were obtained by continuous frame averaging. A previously validated tracking algorithm was employed for autotracking. The difference between the programmed and autotracked positions of a Las Vegas phantom moving in the superior-inferior direction defined the tracking error (δ). Motion blurring was assessed by measuring the area change of the circle with the greatest depth. Additionally, lung tumors on 1747 frames acquired at 11 field angles from four radiotherapy patients are manually and automatically tracked with varying frame averaging. δ was defined by the position difference of the two tracking methods. Image noise was defined as the standard deviation of the background intensity. Motion blurring and image noise are correlated with δ using Pearson correlation coefficient (R).
RESULTS: For both phantom and patient studies, the autotracking errors increased at frame rates lower than 4.29 Hz. Above 4.29 Hz, changes in errors were negligible withδ < 1.60 mm. Motion blurring and image noise were observed to increase and decrease with frame averaging, respectively. Motion blurring and tracking errors were significantly correlated for the phantom (R = 0.94) and patient studies (R = 0.72). Moderate to poor correlation was found between image noise and tracking error with R -0.58 and -0.19 for both studies, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Cine EPID image acquisition at the frame rate of at least 4.29 Hz is recommended. Motion blurring in the images with frame rates below 4.29 Hz can significantly reduce the accuracy of autotracking.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24877797      PMCID: PMC4032434          DOI: 10.1118/1.4873322

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  21 in total

1.  Dose-response characteristics of an amorphous silicon EPID.

Authors:  Peter Winkler; Alfred Hefner; Dietmar Georg
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Comparison of ghosting effects for three commercial a-Si EPIDs.

Authors:  L N McDermott; S M J J G Nijsten; J-J Sonke; M Partridge; M van Herk; B J Mijnheer
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 3.  Radiotherapy of mobile tumors.

Authors:  Steve B Jiang
Journal:  Semin Radiat Oncol       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 5.934

4.  The reproducibility of organ position using active breathing control (ABC) during liver radiotherapy.

Authors:  L A Dawson; K K Brock; S Kazanjian; D Fitch; C J McGinn; T S Lawrence; R K Ten Haken; J Balter
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2001-12-01       Impact factor: 7.038

5.  Real-time soft tissue motion estimation for lung tumors during radiotherapy delivery.

Authors:  Joerg Rottmann; Paul Keall; Ross Berbeco
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Clinical outcomes of a phase I/II study of 48 Gy of stereotactic body radiotherapy in 4 fractions for primary lung cancer using a stereotactic body frame.

Authors:  Yasushi Nagata; Kenji Takayama; Yukinori Matsuo; Yoshiki Norihisa; Takashi Mizowaki; Takashi Sakamoto; Masato Sakamoto; Michihide Mitsumori; Keiko Shibuya; Norio Araki; Shinsuke Yano; Masahiro Hiraoka
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2005-09-19       Impact factor: 7.038

7.  The management of respiratory motion in radiation oncology report of AAPM Task Group 76.

Authors:  Paul J Keall; Gig S Mageras; James M Balter; Richard S Emery; Kenneth M Forster; Steve B Jiang; Jeffrey M Kapatoes; Daniel A Low; Martin J Murphy; Brad R Murray; Chester R Ramsey; Marcel B Van Herk; S Sastry Vedam; John W Wong; Ellen Yorke
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Optimization of image quality and dose for Varian aS500 electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs).

Authors:  C K McGarry; M W D Grattan; V P Cosgrove
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2007-11-08       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  Clinical feasibility of using an EPID in CINE mode for image-guided verification of stereotactic body radiotherapy.

Authors:  Ross I Berbeco; Fred Hacker; Dan Ionascu; Harvey J Mamon
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2007-09-01       Impact factor: 7.038

10.  What margins should be added to the clinical target volume in radiotherapy treatment planning for lung cancer?

Authors:  L Ekberg; O Holmberg; L Wittgren; G Bjelkengren; T Landberg
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 6.280

View more
  3 in total

1.  A novel EPID design for enhanced contrast and detective quantum efficiency.

Authors:  Joerg Rottmann; Daniel Morf; Rony Fueglistaller; George Zentai; Josh Star-Lack; Ross Berbeco
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2016-08-05       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  A novel method for quantification of beam's-eye-view tumor tracking performance.

Authors:  Yue-Houng Hu; Marios Myronakis; Joerg Rottmann; Adam Wang; Daniel Morf; Daniel Shedlock; Paul Baturin; Josh Star-Lack; Ross Berbeco
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2017-10-13       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Enhancement of megavoltage electronic portal images for markerless tumor tracking.

Authors:  Kwang-Ho Cheong; Jai-Woong Yoon; Soah Park; Taejin Hwang; Sei-Kwon Kang; Taeryool Koo; Tae Jin Han; Haeyoung Kim; Me Yeon Lee; Kyoung Ju Kim; Hoonsik Bae
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2018-07-09       Impact factor: 2.102

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.