Yudai Kai1,2, Hidetaka Arimura3, Ryo Toya4, Tetsuo Saito5, Tomohiko Matsuyama5, Yoshiyuki Fukugawa6, Shinya Shiraishi7, Yoshinobu Shimohigashi2, Masato Maruyama2, Natsuo Oya5. 1. Department of Health Sciences, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1, Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan. 2. Department of Radiological Technology, Kumamoto University Hospital, 1-1-1, Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan. 3. Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1, Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Kumamoto University Hospital, 1-1-1, Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan. ryo108@kumamoto-u.ac.jp. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Kumamoto University Hospital, 1-1-1, Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Arao Municipal Hospital, 2600, Arao-shi, Kumamoto, 864-0041, Japan. 7. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Kumamoto University Hospital, 1-1-1, Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This observer study aimed to compare rigid image registration (RIR) with deformable image registration (DIR) for diagnostic position (DP) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) images in the delineation of gross tumor volumes (GTVs) in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) radiotherapy planning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four radiation oncologists individually delineated the GTVs, GTVRIR, and GTVDIR, on planning CT (pCT) images registered with DP-PET/CT images using RIR and B-spline-based DIR, respectively. Reference GTVs were independently delineated by all radiation oncologists using radiotherapy position (RP)-PET/CT images. DP- and RP-PET/CT images for 14 patients with NPC were acquired using early and delayed scans, respectively. Dice's similarity coefficient (DSC), mean distance to agreement, and volume agreement with reference GTVs were compared by considering the interobserver variability in reference contours. RESULTS: The average DSCs for GTVRIR and GTVDIR were 0.77 and 0.77, which were acceptable for GTV delineation. There were no statistically significant differences between GTVRIR and GTVDIR in all evaluation indexes (p > 0.05). Furthermore, the correlation between neck flexion angle differences and GTV accuracy was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: RIR was a feasible choice compared with the B-spline-based DIR in GTV delineation for NPC under variations of neck flexion angle.
PURPOSE: This observer study aimed to compare rigid image registration (RIR) with deformable image registration (DIR) for diagnostic position (DP) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) images in the delineation of gross tumor volumes (GTVs) in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) radiotherapy planning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four radiation oncologists individually delineated the GTVs, GTVRIR, and GTVDIR, on planning CT (pCT) images registered with DP-PET/CT images using RIR and B-spline-based DIR, respectively. Reference GTVs were independently delineated by all radiation oncologists using radiotherapy position (RP)-PET/CT images. DP- and RP-PET/CT images for 14 patients with NPC were acquired using early and delayed scans, respectively. Dice's similarity coefficient (DSC), mean distance to agreement, and volume agreement with reference GTVs were compared by considering the interobserver variability in reference contours. RESULTS: The average DSCs for GTVRIR and GTVDIR were 0.77 and 0.77, which were acceptable for GTV delineation. There were no statistically significant differences between GTVRIR and GTVDIR in all evaluation indexes (p > 0.05). Furthermore, the correlation between neck flexion angle differences and GTV accuracy was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: RIR was a feasible choice compared with the B-spline-based DIR in GTV delineation for NPC under variations of neck flexion angle.
Entities:
Keywords:
Deformable image registration; Delineation of gross tumor volume; Diagnostic position PET/CT; Nasopharyngeal carcinoma; Rigid image registration
Authors: Andrew B Hwang; Stephen L Bacharach; Sue S Yom; Vivian K Weinberg; Jeanne M Quivey; Benjamin L Franc; Ping Xia Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-12-10 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Stewart Gaede; Jason Olsthoorn; Alexander V Louie; David Palma; Edward Yu; Brian Yaremko; Belal Ahmad; Jeff Chen; Karl Bzdusek; George Rodrigues Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2011-10-06 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Mary Koshy; Arnold C Paulino; Rebecca Howell; David Schuster; Raghuveer Halkar; Lawrence W Davis Journal: Head Neck Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Jason Pukala; Perry B Johnson; Amish P Shah; Katja M Langen; Frank J Bova; Robert J Staton; Rafael R Mañon; Patrick Kelly; Sanford L Meeks Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2016-05-08 Impact factor: 2.102