OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the consistency of therapy radiographers performing image registration using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)-CT, magnetic resonance (MR)-CT, and MR-MR image guidance for cervix cancer radiotherapy and to assess that MR-based image guidance is not inferior to CBCT standard practice. METHODS: 10 patients receiving cervix radiation therapy underwent daily CBCT guidance and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging weekly during treatment. Offline registration of each MR image, and corresponding CBCT, to planning CT was performed by five radiographers. MR images were also registered to the earliest MR interobserver variation was assessed using modified Bland-Altman analysis with clinically acceptable 95% limits of agreement (LoA) defined as ±5.0 mm. RESULTS: 30 CBCT-CT, 30 MR-CT and 20 MR-MR registrations were performed by each observer. Registration variations between CBCT-CT and MR-CT were minor and both strategies resulted in 95% LoA over the clinical threshold in the anteroposterior direction (CBCT-CT ±5.8 mm, MR-CT ±5.4 mm). MR-MR registrations achieved a significantly improved 95% LoA in the anteroposterior direction (±4.3 mm). All strategies demonstrated similar results in lateral and longitudinal directions. CONCLUSION: The magnitude of interobserver variations between CBCT-CT and MR-CT were similar, confirming that MR-CT radiotherapy workflows are comparable to CBCT-CT image-guided radiotherapy. Our results suggest MR-MR radiotherapy workflows may be a superior registration strategy. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This is the first publication quantifying interobserver registration of multimodality image registration strategies for cervix radical radiotherapy patients.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the consistency of therapy radiographers performing image registration using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)-CT, magnetic resonance (MR)-CT, and MR-MR image guidance for cervix cancer radiotherapy and to assess that MR-based image guidance is not inferior to CBCT standard practice. METHODS: 10 patients receiving cervix radiation therapy underwent daily CBCT guidance and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging weekly during treatment. Offline registration of each MR image, and corresponding CBCT, to planning CT was performed by five radiographers. MR images were also registered to the earliest MR interobserver variation was assessed using modified Bland-Altman analysis with clinically acceptable 95% limits of agreement (LoA) defined as ±5.0 mm. RESULTS: 30 CBCT-CT, 30 MR-CT and 20 MR-MR registrations were performed by each observer. Registration variations between CBCT-CT and MR-CT were minor and both strategies resulted in 95% LoA over the clinical threshold in the anteroposterior direction (CBCT-CT ±5.8 mm, MR-CT ±5.4 mm). MR-MR registrations achieved a significantly improved 95% LoA in the anteroposterior direction (±4.3 mm). All strategies demonstrated similar results in lateral and longitudinal directions. CONCLUSION: The magnitude of interobserver variations between CBCT-CT and MR-CT were similar, confirming that MR-CT radiotherapy workflows are comparable to CBCT-CT image-guided radiotherapy. Our results suggest MR-MR radiotherapy workflows may be a superior registration strategy. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This is the first publication quantifying interobserver registration of multimodality image registration strategies for cervix radical radiotherapy patients.
Authors: Camille E Noel; Parag J Parikh; Christopher R Spencer; Olga L Green; Yanle Hu; Sasa Mutic; Jeffrey R Olsen Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2015-07-24 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Anders S Bertelsen; Tine Schytte; Pia K Møller; Faisal Mahmood; Hans L Riis; Karina L Gottlieb; Søren N Agergaard; Lars Dysager; Olfred Hansen; Janne Gornitzka; Elisabeth Veldhuizen; Dean B ODwyer; Rasmus L Christiansen; Morten Nielsen; Henrik R Jensen; Carsten Brink; Uffe Bernchou Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2019-06-26 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Donna H Murrell; Andrew Warner; Quinn Benwell; Wendy Wells; Danielle Scott; Vikram Velker; George Hajdok; David P D'Souza Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2018-05-18 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: A Cree; J Livsey; L Barraclough; M Dubec; T Hambrock; M Van Herk; A Choudhury; A McWilliam Journal: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) Date: 2018-09-09 Impact factor: 4.126