Yi Rong1, Mihaela Rosu-Bubulac2, Stanley H Benedict3, Yunfeng Cui4, Russell Ruo5, Tanner Connell5, Rojano Kashani6, Kujtim Latifi7, Quan Chen8, Huaizhi Geng9, Jason Sohn10, Ying Xiao9. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Davis Cancer Center, Sacramento, California; Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona. Electronic address: rong.yi@mayo.edu. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Davis Cancer Center, Sacramento, California. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 5. Department of Medical Physics, McGill University Health Center, Montreal, QC, Canada. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida. 8. Department of Radiation Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky. 9. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 10. Department of Radiation Oncology, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The registration of multiple imaging studies to radiation therapy computed tomography simulation, including magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography-computed tomography, etc. is a widely used strategy in radiation oncology treatment planning, and these registrations have valuable roles in image guidance, dose composition/accumulation, and treatment delivery adaptation. The NRG Oncology Medical Physics subcommittee formed a working group to investigate feasible workflows for a self-study credentialing process of image registration commissioning. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 132 (TG132) report on the use of image registration and fusion algorithms in radiation therapy provides basic guidelines for quality assurance and quality control of the image registration algorithms and the overall clinical process. The report recommends a series of tests and the corresponding metrics that should be evaluated and reported during commissioning and routine quality assurance, as well as a set of recommendations for vendors. The NRG Oncology medical physics subcommittee working group found incompatibility of some digital phantoms with commercial systems. Thus, there is still a need to provide further recommendations in terms of compatible digital phantoms, clinical feasible workflow, and achievable thresholds, especially for future clinical trials involving deformable image registration algorithms. Nine institutions participated and evaluated 4 commonly used commercial imaging registration software and various versions in the field of radiation oncology. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The NRG Oncology Working Group on image registration commissioning herein provides recommendations on the use of digital phantom/data sets and analytical software access for institutions and clinics to perform their own self-study evaluation of commercial imaging systems that might be employed for coregistration in radiation therapy treatment planning and image guidance procedures. Evaluation metrics and their corresponding values were given as guidelines to establish practical tolerances. Vendor compliance for image registration commissioning was evaluated, and recommendations were given for future development.
PURPOSE: The registration of multiple imaging studies to radiation therapy computed tomography simulation, including magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography-computed tomography, etc. is a widely used strategy in radiation oncology treatment planning, and these registrations have valuable roles in image guidance, dose composition/accumulation, and treatment delivery adaptation. The NRG Oncology Medical Physics subcommittee formed a working group to investigate feasible workflows for a self-study credentialing process of image registration commissioning. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 132 (TG132) report on the use of image registration and fusion algorithms in radiation therapy provides basic guidelines for quality assurance and quality control of the image registration algorithms and the overall clinical process. The report recommends a series of tests and the corresponding metrics that should be evaluated and reported during commissioning and routine quality assurance, as well as a set of recommendations for vendors. The NRG Oncology medical physics subcommittee working group found incompatibility of some digital phantoms with commercial systems. Thus, there is still a need to provide further recommendations in terms of compatible digital phantoms, clinical feasible workflow, and achievable thresholds, especially for future clinical trials involving deformable image registration algorithms. Nine institutions participated and evaluated 4 commonly used commercial imaging registration software and various versions in the field of radiation oncology. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The NRG Oncology Working Group on image registration commissioning herein provides recommendations on the use of digital phantom/data sets and analytical software access for institutions and clinics to perform their own self-study evaluation of commercial imaging systems that might be employed for coregistration in radiation therapy treatment planning and image guidance procedures. Evaluation metrics and their corresponding values were given as guidelines to establish practical tolerances. Vendor compliance for image registration commissioning was evaluated, and recommendations were given for future development.
Authors: Sasa Mutic; Jatinder R Palta; Elizabeth K Butker; Indra J Das; M Saiful Huq; Leh-Nien Dick Loo; Bill J Salter; Cynthia H McCollough; Jacob Van Dyk Journal: Med Phys Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Jean-Pierre Bissonnette; Peter A Balter; Lei Dong; Katja M Langen; D Michael Lovelock; Moyed Miften; Douglas J Moseley; Jean Pouliot; Jan-Jakob Sonke; Sua Yoo Journal: Med Phys Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 4.071
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
Authors: Carri K Glide-Hurst; Percy Lee; Adam D Yock; Jeffrey R Olsen; Minsong Cao; Farzan Siddiqui; William Parker; Anthony Doemer; Yi Rong; Amar U Kishan; Stanley H Benedict; X Allen Li; Beth A Erickson; Jason W Sohn; Ying Xiao; Evan Wuthrick Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2020-10-24 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Christoph Hoffmann; Sonja Krause; Eva M Stoiber; Angela Mohr; Stefan Rieken; Oliver Schramm; Jürgen Debus; Florian Sterzing; Rolf Bendl; Kristina Giske Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2014-01-06 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Hayeon Kim; Yongsook C Lee; Stanley H Benedict; Brandon Dyer; Michael Price; Yi Rong; Ananth Ravi; Eric Leung; Sushil Beriwal; Mark E Bernard; Jyoti Mayadev; Jessica R L Leif; Ying Xiao Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2021-06-17 Impact factor: 7.038