Jonathan H Bryant1, Joerg Rottmann1, John H Lewis1, Pankaj Mishra1, Paul J Keall2, Ross I Berbeco1. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115. 2. Radiation Physics Laboratory, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The authors combine the registration of 2D beam's eye view (BEV) images and 3D planning computed tomography (CT) images, with relative, markerless tumor tracking to provide automatic absolute tracking of physician defined volumes such as the gross tumor volume (GTV). METHODS: During treatment of lung SBRT cases, BEV images were continuously acquired with an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) operating in cine mode. For absolute registration of physician-defined volumes, an intensity based 2D/3D registration to the planning CT was performed using the end-of-exhale (EoE) phase of the four dimensional computed tomography (4DCT). The volume was converted from Hounsfield units into electron density by a calibration curve and digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) were generated for each beam geometry. Using normalized cross correlation between the DRR and an EoE BEV image, the best in-plane rigid transformation was found. The transformation was applied to physician-defined contours in the planning CT, mapping them into the EPID image domain. A robust multiregion method of relative markerless lung tumor tracking quantified deviations from the EoE position. RESULTS: The success of 2D/3D registration was demonstrated at the EoE breathing phase. By registering at this phase and then employing a separate technique for relative tracking, the authors are able to successfully track target volumes in the BEV images throughout the entire treatment delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Through the combination of EPID/4DCT registration and relative tracking, a necessary step toward the clinical implementation of BEV tracking has been completed. The knowledge of tumor volumes relative to the treatment field is important for future applications like real-time motion management, adaptive radiotherapy, and delivered dose calculations.
PURPOSE: The authors combine the registration of 2D beam's eye view (BEV) images and 3D planning computed tomography (CT) images, with relative, markerless tumor tracking to provide automatic absolute tracking of physician defined volumes such as the gross tumor volume (GTV). METHODS: During treatment of lung SBRT cases, BEV images were continuously acquired with an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) operating in cine mode. For absolute registration of physician-defined volumes, an intensity based 2D/3D registration to the planning CT was performed using the end-of-exhale (EoE) phase of the four dimensional computed tomography (4DCT). The volume was converted from Hounsfield units into electron density by a calibration curve and digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) were generated for each beam geometry. Using normalized cross correlation between the DRR and an EoE BEV image, the best in-plane rigid transformation was found. The transformation was applied to physician-defined contours in the planning CT, mapping them into the EPID image domain. A robust multiregion method of relative markerless lung tumor tracking quantified deviations from the EoE position. RESULTS: The success of 2D/3D registration was demonstrated at the EoE breathing phase. By registering at this phase and then employing a separate technique for relative tracking, the authors are able to successfully track target volumes in the BEV images throughout the entire treatment delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Through the combination of EPID/4DCT registration and relative tracking, a necessary step toward the clinical implementation of BEV tracking has been completed. The knowledge of tumor volumes relative to the treatment field is important for future applications like real-time motion management, adaptive radiotherapy, and delivered dose calculations.
Authors: Amit Sawant; Ryan L Smith; Raghu B Venkat; Lakshmi Santanam; Byungchul Cho; Per Poulsen; Herbert Cattell; Laurence J Newell; Parag Parikh; Paul J Keall Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-03-26 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Reshma Munbodh; Zhe Chen; David A Jaffray; Douglas J Moseley; Jonathan P S Knisely; James S Duncan Journal: Med Phys Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: John H Lewis; Ruijiang Li; W Tyler Watkins; Joshua D Lawson; W Paul Segars; Laura I Cerviño; William Y Song; Steve B Jiang Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2010-04-14 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Thomas G Purdie; Jean-Pierre Bissonnette; Kevin Franks; Andrea Bezjak; David Payne; Fanny Sie; Michael B Sharpe; David A Jaffray Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-02-27 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Nikhil Bhagat; Nicholas Fidelman; Jeremy C Durack; Jeremy Collins; Roy L Gordon; Jeanne M LaBerge; Robert K Kerlan Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2010-07-27 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Haijian Chen; Joerg Rottmann; Stephen Sf Yip; Daniel Morf; Rony Füglistaller; Josh Star-Lack; George Zentai; Ross Berbeco Journal: Biomed Phys Eng Express Date: 2017-02-21
Authors: Chun-Chien Shieh; Vincent Caillet; Michelle Dunbar; Paul J Keall; Jeremy T Booth; Nicholas Hardcastle; Carol Haddad; Thomas Eade; Ilana Feain Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2017-03-21 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: John C Roeske; Hassan Mostafavi; Maksat Haytmyradov; Adam Wang; Daniel Morf; Luca Cortesi; Murat Surucu; Rakesh Patel; Roberto Cassetta; Liangjia Zhu; Mathias Lehmann; Matthew M Harkenrider Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-03-02
Authors: Maksat Haytmyradov; Hassan Mostafavi; Adam Wang; Liangjia Zhu; Murat Surucu; Rakesh Patel; Arun Ganguly; Michelle Richmond; Roberto Cassetta; Matthew M Harkenrider; John C Roeske Journal: Med Phys Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 4.071