Evaluation of the geometric and dosimetric accuracies of deformable image registration of targets and critical organs in prostate CBCT-guided adaptive radiotherapy

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Hussam Hameed Jassim, Hassan Ali Nedaie, Nooshin Banaee, Ghazale Geraily, Ali Kazemian, Danial Seifi Makrani
{"title":"Evaluation of the geometric and dosimetric accuracies of deformable image registration of targets and critical organs in prostate CBCT-guided adaptive radiotherapy","authors":"Hussam Hameed Jassim,&nbsp;Hassan Ali Nedaie,&nbsp;Nooshin Banaee,&nbsp;Ghazale Geraily,&nbsp;Ali Kazemian,&nbsp;Danial Seifi Makrani","doi":"10.1002/acm2.14490","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>Kilovoltage cone beam computed tomography (kVCBCT)-guided adaptive radiation therapy (ART) uses daily deformed CT (dCT), which is generated automatically through deformable registration methods. These registration methods may perform poorly in reproducing volumes of the target organ, rectum, and bladder during treatment. We analyzed the registration errors between the daily kVCBCTs and corresponding dCTs for these organs using the default optical flow algorithm and two registration procedures. We validated the effectiveness of these registration methods in replicating the geometry for dose calculation on kVCBCT for ART.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We evaluated three deformable image registration (DIR) methods to assess their registration accuracy and dose calculation effeciency in mapping target and critical organs. The DIR methods include (1) default intensity-based deformable registration, (2) hybrid deformable registration, and (3) a two-step deformable registration process. Each technique was applied to a computerized imaging reference system (CIRS) phantom (Model 062 M) and to five patients who received volumetric modulated arc therapy to the prostate. Registration accuracy was assessed using the 95% Hausdorff distance (HD<sub>95</sub>) and Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), and each method was compared with the intensity-based registration method. The improvement in the dCT image quality of the CIRS phantom and five patients was assessed by comparing dCT with kVCBCT. Image quality quantitative metrics for the phantom included the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), uniformity, and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), whereas those for the patients included the mean absolute error (MAE), mean error, peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR), and structural similarity index measure (SSIM). To determine dose metric differences, we used a dose-volume histogram (DVH) and 3.0%/0.3 mm gamma analysis to compare planning computed tomography (pCT) and kVCBCT recalculations with restimulated CT images used as a reference.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The dCT images generated by the hybrid (dCT<sub>H</sub>) and two-step (dCT<sub>C</sub>) registration methods resulted in significant improvements compared to kVCBCT in the phantom model. Specifically, the SNR improved by 107% and 107.2%, the uniformity improved by 90% and 75%, and the CNR improved by 212.2% and 225.6 for dCT<sub>H</sub> and dCT<sub>C</sub> methods, respectively. For the patient images, the MAEs improved by 98% and 94%, the PSNRs improved by 16.3% and 22.9%, and the SSIMs improved by 1% and 1% in the dCT<sub>H</sub> and dCT<sub>C</sub> methods, respectively. For the geometric evaluation, only the two-step registration method improved registration accuracy. The dCT<sub>H</sub> method yielded an average HD<sub>95</sub> of 12 mm and average DSC of 0.73, whereas dCT<sub>C</sub> yielded an average HD<sub>95</sub> of 2.9 mm and average DSC of 0.902. The DVH showed that the dCT<sub>C</sub>-based dose calculations differed by &lt;2% from the expected results for treatment targets and volumes of organs at risk. Additionally, gamma indices for dCT<sub>C</sub>-based treatment plans were &gt;95% at all points, whereas they were &lt;95% for kVCBCT-based treatment plans.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The two-step registration method outperforms the intensity-based and hybrid registration methods. While the hybrid and two-step-based methods improved the image quality of kVCBCT in a linear accelerator, only the two-step method improved the registration accuracy of the corresponding structures among the pCT and kVCBCT datasets. A two-step registration process is recommended for applying kVCBCT to ART, which achieves better registration accuracy for local and global image structures. This method appears to be beneficial for radiotherapy dose calculation in patients with pelvic cancer.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":14989,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/acm2.14490","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.14490","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

Kilovoltage cone beam computed tomography (kVCBCT)-guided adaptive radiation therapy (ART) uses daily deformed CT (dCT), which is generated automatically through deformable registration methods. These registration methods may perform poorly in reproducing volumes of the target organ, rectum, and bladder during treatment. We analyzed the registration errors between the daily kVCBCTs and corresponding dCTs for these organs using the default optical flow algorithm and two registration procedures. We validated the effectiveness of these registration methods in replicating the geometry for dose calculation on kVCBCT for ART.

Methods

We evaluated three deformable image registration (DIR) methods to assess their registration accuracy and dose calculation effeciency in mapping target and critical organs. The DIR methods include (1) default intensity-based deformable registration, (2) hybrid deformable registration, and (3) a two-step deformable registration process. Each technique was applied to a computerized imaging reference system (CIRS) phantom (Model 062 M) and to five patients who received volumetric modulated arc therapy to the prostate. Registration accuracy was assessed using the 95% Hausdorff distance (HD95) and Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), and each method was compared with the intensity-based registration method. The improvement in the dCT image quality of the CIRS phantom and five patients was assessed by comparing dCT with kVCBCT. Image quality quantitative metrics for the phantom included the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), uniformity, and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), whereas those for the patients included the mean absolute error (MAE), mean error, peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR), and structural similarity index measure (SSIM). To determine dose metric differences, we used a dose-volume histogram (DVH) and 3.0%/0.3 mm gamma analysis to compare planning computed tomography (pCT) and kVCBCT recalculations with restimulated CT images used as a reference.

Results

The dCT images generated by the hybrid (dCTH) and two-step (dCTC) registration methods resulted in significant improvements compared to kVCBCT in the phantom model. Specifically, the SNR improved by 107% and 107.2%, the uniformity improved by 90% and 75%, and the CNR improved by 212.2% and 225.6 for dCTH and dCTC methods, respectively. For the patient images, the MAEs improved by 98% and 94%, the PSNRs improved by 16.3% and 22.9%, and the SSIMs improved by 1% and 1% in the dCTH and dCTC methods, respectively. For the geometric evaluation, only the two-step registration method improved registration accuracy. The dCTH method yielded an average HD95 of 12 mm and average DSC of 0.73, whereas dCTC yielded an average HD95 of 2.9 mm and average DSC of 0.902. The DVH showed that the dCTC-based dose calculations differed by <2% from the expected results for treatment targets and volumes of organs at risk. Additionally, gamma indices for dCTC-based treatment plans were >95% at all points, whereas they were <95% for kVCBCT-based treatment plans.

Conclusion

The two-step registration method outperforms the intensity-based and hybrid registration methods. While the hybrid and two-step-based methods improved the image quality of kVCBCT in a linear accelerator, only the two-step method improved the registration accuracy of the corresponding structures among the pCT and kVCBCT datasets. A two-step registration process is recommended for applying kVCBCT to ART, which achieves better registration accuracy for local and global image structures. This method appears to be beneficial for radiotherapy dose calculation in patients with pelvic cancer.

Abstract Image

评估前列腺 CBCT 引导自适应放射治疗中目标和重要器官的可变形图像注册的几何精度和剂量测定精度
目的Kilovoltage锥形束计算机断层扫描(kVCBCT)引导的自适应放射治疗(ART)使用每日变形 CT(dCT),该 CT 是通过可变形配准方法自动生成的。在治疗过程中,这些配准方法在再现靶器官、直肠和膀胱的体积方面可能表现不佳。我们使用默认光流算法和两种配准程序分析了这些器官的每日 kVCBCT 和相应 dCT 之间的配准误差。方法我们评估了三种可变形图像配准(DIR)方法,以评估它们在映射靶器官和关键器官时的配准准确性和剂量计算效率。DIR 方法包括:(1) 基于默认强度的可变形配准;(2) 混合可变形配准;(3) 两步可变形配准过程。每种技术都应用于计算机化成像参考系统(CIRS)模型(062 M 型)和五名接受前列腺容积调制弧治疗的患者。使用 95% Hausdorff 距离(HD95)和 Dice 相似系数(DSC)评估了配准精度,并将每种方法与基于强度的配准方法进行了比较。通过比较 dCT 和 kVCBCT,评估了 CIRS 模型和五名患者的 dCT 图像质量的改善情况。模型的图像质量定量指标包括信噪比 (SNR)、均匀度和对比度-噪声比 (CNR),而患者的图像质量定量指标包括平均绝对误差 (MAE)、平均误差、峰值信噪比 (PSNR) 和结构相似性指数 (SSIM)。为了确定剂量指标的差异,我们使用剂量-容积直方图(DVH)和 3.0%/0.3 mm 伽马分析来比较规划计算机断层扫描(pCT)和 kVCBCT 的重新计算结果与作为参考的重新模拟 CT 图像。具体来说,dCTH 和 dCTC 方法的信噪比分别提高了 107% 和 107.2%,均匀度分别提高了 90% 和 75%,CNR 分别提高了 212.2% 和 225.6。对于病人图像,dCTH 和 dCTC 方法的 MAEs 分别提高了 98% 和 94%,PSNRs 分别提高了 16.3% 和 22.9%,SSIMs 分别提高了 1% 和 1%。在几何评估中,只有两步配准法提高了配准精度。dCTH 方法的平均 HD95 值为 12 毫米,平均 DSC 值为 0.73,而 dCTC 方法的平均 HD95 值为 2.9 毫米,平均 DSC 值为 0.902。DVH显示,基于dCTC的剂量计算与治疗目标和危险器官体积的预期结果相差<2%。此外,基于 dCTC 的治疗计划在所有点的伽马指数均为 95%,而基于 kVCBCT 的治疗计划则为 95%。虽然混合法和两步法提高了直线加速器中 kVCBCT 的图像质量,但只有两步法提高了 pCT 和 kVCBCT 数据集中相应结构的配准精度。在将 kVCBCT 应用于 ART 时,建议采用两步法进行配准,这样可以提高局部和全局图像结构的配准精度。这种方法似乎有利于盆腔癌症患者的放疗剂量计算。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
19.00%
发文量
331
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics is an international Open Access publication dedicated to clinical medical physics. JACMP welcomes original contributions dealing with all aspects of medical physics from scientists working in the clinical medical physics around the world. JACMP accepts only online submission. JACMP will publish: -Original Contributions: Peer-reviewed, investigations that represent new and significant contributions to the field. Recommended word count: up to 7500. -Review Articles: Reviews of major areas or sub-areas in the field of clinical medical physics. These articles may be of any length and are peer reviewed. -Technical Notes: These should be no longer than 3000 words, including key references. -Letters to the Editor: Comments on papers published in JACMP or on any other matters of interest to clinical medical physics. These should not be more than 1250 (including the literature) and their publication is only based on the decision of the editor, who occasionally asks experts on the merit of the contents. -Book Reviews: The editorial office solicits Book Reviews. -Announcements of Forthcoming Meetings: The Editor may provide notice of forthcoming meetings, course offerings, and other events relevant to clinical medical physics. -Parallel Opposed Editorial: We welcome topics relevant to clinical practice and medical physics profession. The contents can be controversial debate or opposed aspects of an issue. One author argues for the position and the other against. Each side of the debate contains an opening statement up to 800 words, followed by a rebuttal up to 500 words. Readers interested in participating in this series should contact the moderator with a proposed title and a short description of the topic
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信