Navid Samavati1, Michael Velec2, Kristy K Brock3. 1. Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5G 2M9, Canada. 2. Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A8, Canada. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-0010.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Deformable image registration (DIR) plays an important role in dose accumulation, such as incorporating breathing motion into the accumulation of the delivered dose based on daily 4DCBCT images. However, it is not yet well understood how the uncertainties associated with DIR methods affect the dose calculations and resulting clinical metrics. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of DIR uncertainty on the clinical metrics derived from its use in dose accumulation. METHODS: A biomechanical model based DIR method and a biomechanical-intensity-based hybrid method, which reduced the average registration error by 1.6 mm, were applied to ten lung cancer patients. A clinically relevant dose parameter [minimum dose to 0.5 cm(3) (Dmin)] was calculated for three dose scenarios using both algorithms. Dose scenarios included static (no breathing motion), predicted (breathing motion at the time of planning), and total accumulated (interfraction breathing motion). The relationship between the dose parameter and a combination of DIR uncertainty metrics, tumor volume, and dose heterogeneity of the plan was investigated. RESULTS: Depending on the dose heterogeneity, tumor volume, and DIR uncertainty, in over 50% of the patients, differences greater than 1.0 Gy were observed in the Dmin of the tumor in the static dose calculation on exhale phase of the 4DCT. Such differences were due to the errors in propagating the tumor contours from the reference planning 4DCT phase onto a subsequent 4DCT phase using each DIR algorithm and calculating the dose on that phase. The differences in predicted dose were more subtle when breathing motion was modeled explicitly at the time of planning with only one patient exhibiting a greater than 1.0 Gy difference in Dmin. Dmin differences of up to 2.5 Gy were found in the total accumulated delivered dose due to difference in quantifying the interfraction variations. Such dose uncertainties could potentially be clinically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Reductions in average uncertainty in DIR algorithms by 1.6 mm may have a clinically significant impact on the decision-making metrics used in dose planning and dose accumulation assessment.
PURPOSE: Deformable image registration (DIR) plays an important role in dose accumulation, such as incorporating breathing motion into the accumulation of the delivered dose based on daily 4DCBCT images. However, it is not yet well understood how the uncertainties associated with DIR methods affect the dose calculations and resulting clinical metrics. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of DIR uncertainty on the clinical metrics derived from its use in dose accumulation. METHODS: A biomechanical model based DIR method and a biomechanical-intensity-based hybrid method, which reduced the average registration error by 1.6 mm, were applied to ten lung cancerpatients. A clinically relevant dose parameter [minimum dose to 0.5 cm(3) (Dmin)] was calculated for three dose scenarios using both algorithms. Dose scenarios included static (no breathing motion), predicted (breathing motion at the time of planning), and total accumulated (interfraction breathing motion). The relationship between the dose parameter and a combination of DIR uncertainty metrics, tumor volume, and dose heterogeneity of the plan was investigated. RESULTS: Depending on the dose heterogeneity, tumor volume, and DIR uncertainty, in over 50% of the patients, differences greater than 1.0 Gy were observed in the Dmin of the tumor in the static dose calculation on exhale phase of the 4DCT. Such differences were due to the errors in propagating the tumor contours from the reference planning 4DCT phase onto a subsequent 4DCT phase using each DIR algorithm and calculating the dose on that phase. The differences in predicted dose were more subtle when breathing motion was modeled explicitly at the time of planning with only one patient exhibiting a greater than 1.0 Gy difference in Dmin. Dmin differences of up to 2.5 Gy were found in the total accumulated delivered dose due to difference in quantifying the interfraction variations. Such dose uncertainties could potentially be clinically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Reductions in average uncertainty in DIR algorithms by 1.6 mm may have a clinically significant impact on the decision-making metrics used in dose planning and dose accumulation assessment.
Authors: David A Jaffray; Patricia E Lindsay; Kristy K Brock; Joseph O Deasy; W A Tomé Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Weiguo Lu; Gustavo H Olivera; Quan Chen; Kenneth J Ruchala; Jason Haimerl; Sanford L Meeks; Katja M Langen; Patrick A Kupelian Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2006-08-15 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Mihaela Rosu; James M Balter; Indrin J Chetty; Marc L Kessler; Daniel L McShan; Peter Balter; Randall K Ten Haken Journal: Med Phys Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Patrick A Kupelian; Chester Ramsey; Sanford L Meeks; Twyla R Willoughby; Alan Forbes; Thomas H Wagner; Katja M Langen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-07-11 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Yabo Fu; Hao Zhang; Eric D Morris; Carri K Glide-Hurst; Suraj Pai; Alberto Traverso; Leonard Wee; Ibrahim Hadzic; Per-Ivar Lønne; Chenyang Shen; Tian Liu; Xiaofeng Yang Journal: IEEE Trans Radiat Plasma Med Sci Date: 2021-08-24
Authors: Molly M McCulloch; Choonik Lee; Benjamin S Rosen; Justin D Kamp; Chrissy M Lockhart; Jae Y Lee; Daniel F Polan; Peter G Hawkins; Carlos J R Anderson; Jolien Heukelom; Jan-Jakob Sonke; Clifton D Fuller; James M Balter; Randall K Ten Haken; Avraham Eisbruch; Kristy K Brock Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-03-02
Authors: Martin J Menten; Jonathan K Mohajer; Rahul Nilawar; Jenny Bertholet; Alex Dunlop; Angela U Pathmanathan; Michel Moreau; Spencer Marshall; Andreas Wetscherek; Simeon Nill; Alison C Tree; Uwe Oelfke Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2020-01-10 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Bin Wang; Da Quan Wang; Mao Sheng Lin; Shi Pei Lu; Jun Zhang; Li Chen; Qi Wen Li; Zhang Kai Cheng; Fang Jie Liu; Jin Yu Guo; Hui Liu; Bo Qiu Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-11-16 Impact factor: 4.430