Angelo Mencarelli1, Simon Robert van Kranen2, Olga Hamming-Vrieze2, Suzanne van Beek2, Coenraad Robert Nico Rasch3, Marcel van Herk2, Jan-Jakob Sonke2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: a.mencarelli@nki.nl. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare deformable image registration (DIR) accuracy and precision for normal and tumor tissues in head and neck cancer patients during the course of radiation therapy (RT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirteen patients with oropharyngeal tumors, who underwent submucosal implantation of small gold markers (average 6, range 4-10) around the tumor and were treated with RT were retrospectively selected. Two observers identified 15 anatomical features (landmarks) representative of normal tissues in the planning computed tomography (pCT) scan and in weekly cone beam CTs (CBCTs). Gold markers were digitally removed after semiautomatic identification in pCTs and CBCTs. Subsequently, landmarks and gold markers on pCT were propagated to CBCTs, using a b-spline-based DIR and, for comparison, rigid registration (RR). To account for observer variability, the pair-wise difference analysis of variance method was applied. DIR accuracy (systematic error) and precision (random error) for landmarks and gold markers were quantified. Time trend of the precisions for RR and DIR over the weekly CBCTs were evaluated. RESULTS: DIR accuracies were submillimeter and similar for normal and tumor tissue. DIR precision (1 SD) on the other hand was significantly different (P<.01), with 2.2 mm vector length in normal tissue versus 3.3 mm in tumor tissue. No significant time trend in DIR precision was found for normal tissue, whereas in tumor, DIR precision was significantly (P<.009) degraded during the course of treatment by 0.21 mm/week. CONCLUSIONS: DIR for tumor registration proved to be less precise than that for normal tissues due to limited contrast and complex non-elastic tumor response. Caution should therefore be exercised when applying DIR for tumor changes in adaptive procedures.
PURPOSE: To compare deformable image registration (DIR) accuracy and precision for normal and tumor tissues in head and neck cancerpatients during the course of radiation therapy (RT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirteen patients with oropharyngeal tumors, who underwent submucosal implantation of small gold markers (average 6, range 4-10) around the tumor and were treated with RT were retrospectively selected. Two observers identified 15 anatomical features (landmarks) representative of normal tissues in the planning computed tomography (pCT) scan and in weekly cone beam CTs (CBCTs). Gold markers were digitally removed after semiautomatic identification in pCTs and CBCTs. Subsequently, landmarks and gold markers on pCT were propagated to CBCTs, using a b-spline-based DIR and, for comparison, rigid registration (RR). To account for observer variability, the pair-wise difference analysis of variance method was applied. DIR accuracy (systematic error) and precision (random error) for landmarks and gold markers were quantified. Time trend of the precisions for RR and DIR over the weekly CBCTs were evaluated. RESULTS: DIR accuracies were submillimeter and similar for normal and tumor tissue. DIR precision (1 SD) on the other hand was significantly different (P<.01), with 2.2 mm vector length in normal tissue versus 3.3 mm in tumor tissue. No significant time trend in DIR precision was found for normal tissue, whereas in tumor, DIR precision was significantly (P<.009) degraded during the course of treatment by 0.21 mm/week. CONCLUSIONS: DIR for tumor registration proved to be less precise than that for normal tissues due to limited contrast and complex non-elastic tumor response. Caution should therefore be exercised when applying DIR for tumor changes in adaptive procedures.
Authors: Molly M McCulloch; Guillaume Cazoulat; Alexandra C Ford; Baher Elgohari; Houda Bahig; Andrew D Kim; Hesham Elhalawani; Renjie He; Jihong Wang; Yao Ding; Abdallah Sr Mohamed; Daniel F Polan; Jason B King; Christine B Peterson; Andrea N Ohrt; Clifton D Fuller; Stephen Y Lai; Kristy K Brock Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2020-08-31 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Petra J van Houdt; Harsh K Agarwal; Laurens D van Buuren; Stijn W T P J Heijmink; Søren Haack; Henk G van der Poel; Ghazaleh Ghobadi; Floris J Pos; Johannes M Peeters; Peter L Choyke; Uulke A van der Heide Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-07-03 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Ihab S Ramadaan; Karsten Peick; David A Hamilton; Jamie Evans; Douglas Iupati; Anna Nicholson; Lynne Greig; Robert J W Louwe Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2015-03-31 Impact factor: 3.481