OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a template-based matching algorithm on single-energy (SE) and dual-energy (DE) radiographs for markerless localization of lung tumours. METHODS: A total of 74 images from 17 patients with Stages IA-IV lung cancer were considered. At the time of radiotherapy treatment, gated end-expiration SE radiographs were obtained at 60 and 120 kVp at different gantry angles (33° anterior and 41° oblique), from which soft-tissue-enhanced DE images were created. A template-based matching algorithm was used to localize individual tumours on both SE and DE radiographs. Tumour centroid co-ordinates obtained from the template-matching software on both SE and DE images were compared with co-ordinates defined by physicians. RESULTS: The template-based matching algorithm was able to successfully localize the gross tumor volume within 5 mm on 70% (52/74) of the SE images vs 91% (66/74) of the DE images (p < 0.01). The mean vector differences between the co-ordinates of the template matched by the algorithm and the co-ordinates of the physician-defined ground truth were 3.2 ± 2.8 mm for SE images vs 2.3 ± 1.7 mm for DE images (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Template-based matching on DE images was more accurate and precise than using SE images. Advances in knowledge: This represents, to the authors' knowledge, the largest study evaluating template matching on clinical SE and DE images, considering not only anterior gantry angles but also oblique angles, suggesting a novel lung tumour matching technique using DE subtraction that is reliable, accurate and precise.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a template-based matching algorithm on single-energy (SE) and dual-energy (DE) radiographs for markerless localization of lung tumours. METHODS: A total of 74 images from 17 patients with Stages IA-IV lung cancer were considered. At the time of radiotherapy treatment, gated end-expiration SE radiographs were obtained at 60 and 120 kVp at different gantry angles (33° anterior and 41° oblique), from which soft-tissue-enhanced DE images were created. A template-based matching algorithm was used to localize individual tumours on both SE and DE radiographs. Tumour centroid co-ordinates obtained from the template-matching software on both SE and DE images were compared with co-ordinates defined by physicians. RESULTS: The template-based matching algorithm was able to successfully localize the gross tumor volume within 5 mm on 70% (52/74) of the SE images vs 91% (66/74) of the DE images (p < 0.01). The mean vector differences between the co-ordinates of the template matched by the algorithm and the co-ordinates of the physician-defined ground truth were 3.2 ± 2.8 mm for SE images vs 2.3 ± 1.7 mm for DE images (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Template-based matching on DE images was more accurate and precise than using SE images. Advances in knowledge: This represents, to the authors' knowledge, the largest study evaluating template matching on clinical SE and DE images, considering not only anterior gantry angles but also oblique angles, suggesting a novel lung tumour matching technique using DE subtraction that is reliable, accurate and precise.
Authors: J W Wong; M B Sharpe; D A Jaffray; V R Kini; J M Robertson; J S Stromberg; A A Martinez Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1999-07-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Robert Timmerman; Rebecca Paulus; James Galvin; Jeffrey Michalski; William Straube; Jeffrey Bradley; Achilles Fakiris; Andrea Bezjak; Gregory Videtic; David Johnstone; Jack Fowler; Elizabeth Gore; Hak Choy Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-03-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jennifer Dhont; Dirk Verellen; Kenneth Poels; Koen Tournel; Manuela Burghelea; Thierry Gevaert; Christine Collen; Benedikt Engels; Robbe Van Den Begin; Nico Buls; Gert Van Gompel; Toon Van Cauteren; Guy Storme; Mark De Ridder Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2015-09-03 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Gregory M M Videtic; Chen Hu; Anurag K Singh; Joe Y Chang; William Parker; Kenneth R Olivier; Steven E Schild; Ritsuko Komaki; James J Urbanic; Hak Choy Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Suneil Jain; Ian Poon; Hany Soliman; Brian Keller; Anthony Kim; Fiona Lochray; Latifa Yeung; Patrick Cheung Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2013-08-27 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Angela van Baardwijk; Wolfgang A Tomé; Wouter van Elmpt; Søren M Bentzen; Bart Reymen; Rinus Wanders; Ruud Houben; Michel Ollers; Philippe Lambin; Dirk De Ruysscher Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2012-10-12 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Kevin C Jones; Julius Turian; Gage Redler; Gizem Cifter; John Strologas; Alistair Templeton; Damian Bernard; James C H Chu Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2020-08-10 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
Authors: Maksat Haytmyradov; Hassan Mostafavi; Roberto Cassetta; Rakesh Patel; Murat Surucu; Liangjia Zhu; John C Roeske Journal: Med Phys Date: 2020-01-10 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Ingo Gulyas; Petra Trnkova; Barbara Knäusl; Joachim Widder; Dietmar Georg; Andreas Renner Journal: Med Phys Date: 2022-06-06 Impact factor: 4.506
Authors: Kevin Nguyen; Maksat Haytmyradov; Hassan Mostafavi; Rakesh Patel; Murat Surucu; Alec Block; Matthew M Harkenrider; John C Roeske Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2018-07-31 Impact factor: 6.244