Youngjun Kim1, Ruijiang Li2, Yong Hum Na2, Rena Lee3, Lei Xing2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305 and Center for Bionics, Korea Institute of Science and Technology, Seoul 136-791, South Korea. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Ewha Womans University School of Medicine, Seoul 158-710, South Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: 3D optical surface imaging has been applied to patient positioning in radiation therapy (RT). The optical patient positioning system is advantageous over conventional method using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in that it is radiation free, frameless, and is capable of real-time monitoring. While the conventional radiographic method uses volumetric registration, the optical system uses surface matching for patient alignment. The relative accuracy of these two methods has not yet been sufficiently investigated. This study aims to investigate the theoretical accuracy of the surface registration based on a simulation study using patient data. METHODS: This study compares the relative accuracy of surface and volumetric registration in head-and-neck RT. The authors examined 26 patient data sets, each consisting of planning CT data acquired before treatment and patient setup CBCT data acquired at the time of treatment. As input data of surface registration, patient's skin surfaces were created by contouring patient skin from planning CT and treatment CBCT. Surface registration was performed using the iterative closest points algorithm by point-plane closest, which minimizes the normal distance between source points and target surfaces. Six degrees of freedom (three translations and three rotations) were used in both surface and volumetric registrations and the results were compared. The accuracy of each method was estimated by digital phantom tests. RESULTS: Based on the results of 26 patients, the authors found that the average and maximum root-mean-square translation deviation between the surface and volumetric registrations were 2.7 and 5.2 mm, respectively. The residual error of the surface registration was calculated to have an average of 0.9 mm and a maximum of 1.7 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Surface registration may lead to results different from those of the conventional volumetric registration. Only limited accuracy can be achieved for patient positioning with an approach based solely on surface information.
PURPOSE: 3D optical surface imaging has been applied to patient positioning in radiation therapy (RT). The optical patient positioning system is advantageous over conventional method using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in that it is radiation free, frameless, and is capable of real-time monitoring. While the conventional radiographic method uses volumetric registration, the optical system uses surface matching for patient alignment. The relative accuracy of these two methods has not yet been sufficiently investigated. This study aims to investigate the theoretical accuracy of the surface registration based on a simulation study using patient data. METHODS: This study compares the relative accuracy of surface and volumetric registration in head-and-neck RT. The authors examined 26 patient data sets, each consisting of planning CT data acquired before treatment and patient setup CBCT data acquired at the time of treatment. As input data of surface registration, patient's skin surfaces were created by contouring patient skin from planning CT and treatment CBCT. Surface registration was performed using the iterative closest points algorithm by point-plane closest, which minimizes the normal distance between source points and target surfaces. Six degrees of freedom (three translations and three rotations) were used in both surface and volumetric registrations and the results were compared. The accuracy of each method was estimated by digital phantom tests. RESULTS: Based on the results of 26 patients, the authors found that the average and maximum root-mean-square translation deviation between the surface and volumetric registrations were 2.7 and 5.2 mm, respectively. The residual error of the surface registration was calculated to have an average of 0.9 mm and a maximum of 1.7 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Surface registration may lead to results different from those of the conventional volumetric registration. Only limited accuracy can be achieved for patient positioning with an approach based solely on surface information.
Authors: Sanford L Meeks; Wolfgang A Tomé; Tywla R Willoughby; Patrick A Kupelian; Thomas H Wagner; John M Buatti; Francis J Bova Journal: Semin Radiat Oncol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 5.934
Authors: Guido Baroni; Marco Riboldi; Maria Francesca Spadea; Barbara Tagaste; Cristina Garibaldi; Roberto Orecchia; Antonio Pedotti Journal: J Radiat Res Date: 2007 Impact factor: 2.724
Authors: Jean L Peng; Darren Kahler; Jonathan G Li; Sanjiv Samant; Guanghua Yan; Robert Amdur; Chihray Liu Journal: Med Phys Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Sameer K Nath; Joshua D Lawson; Jia-Zhu Wang; Daniel R Simpson; C Benjamin Newman; John F Alksne; Arno J Mundt; Kevin T Murphy Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2009-08-23 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Hsiang-Chi Kuo; Michael M Lovelock; Guang Li; Åse Ballangrud; Brian Wolthuis; Cesar Della Biancia; Margie A Hunt; Sean L Berry Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2020-11-12 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Lawrie Skinner; Rick Knopp; Yi-Chun Wang; Piotr Dubrowski; Karl K Bush; Alyssa Limmer; Nicholas Trakul; Lynn Million; Carol M Marquez; Amy S Yu Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2021-05-27 Impact factor: 2.102