Comparison of different registration methods in cone-beam computed tomography for breast boost radiation therapy

IF 0.3 Q4 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
A. Lastrucci, L. Fedeli, L. Marciello, E. Serventi, S. Segnini, F. Meucci, L. Bernardi, R. Ricci, S. Marzano
{"title":"Comparison of different registration methods in cone-beam computed tomography for breast boost radiation therapy","authors":"A. Lastrucci, L. Fedeli, L. Marciello, E. Serventi, S. Segnini, F. Meucci, L. Bernardi, R. Ricci, S. Marzano","doi":"10.1017/S1460396922000176","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Introduction: The aim of this study is to compare patient geometrical uncertainties in the treatment of breast boost three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) considering both manual alignment and automatic different registration methods in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Methods: A total of 85 patients were chosen for this study. A total of 254 registrations of CBCT vs planning computed tomography (CT) were retrospectively performed using automatic registration algorithms from Elekta XVI system (Clipbox and Mask) to detect patient setup uncertainties. All CBCTs were also matched manually by three health professionals. Mean shift values obtained with manual registration performed by health professionals were used as reference. Absolute value of difference between automatic algorithm shifts and reference values shifts was collected for each enrolled patient considering the three different spatial directions (x, y ,z), and the magnitude was calculated (δm for Mask and δc for Clipbox). Results: Data analysis showed a significant difference in δm and δc. t-Test statistics showed a high difference between Mask and Clipbox, in particular mean δm = (1.3 ± 0.1) mm and δc = (3.3 ± 1.2) mm (p-value <0.0001). Mask algorithm was performed in a very similar way with respect to the reference alignment, and the differences between these two procedures were of the order of 1 mm. Clipbox algorithm showed larger differences with manual registration. Conclusions: These results suggest that the Mask algorithm may be the optimal choice for patient setup verification in clinical practice for breast boost treatment in 3D-CRT.","PeriodicalId":44597,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1460396922000176","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Introduction: The aim of this study is to compare patient geometrical uncertainties in the treatment of breast boost three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) considering both manual alignment and automatic different registration methods in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Methods: A total of 85 patients were chosen for this study. A total of 254 registrations of CBCT vs planning computed tomography (CT) were retrospectively performed using automatic registration algorithms from Elekta XVI system (Clipbox and Mask) to detect patient setup uncertainties. All CBCTs were also matched manually by three health professionals. Mean shift values obtained with manual registration performed by health professionals were used as reference. Absolute value of difference between automatic algorithm shifts and reference values shifts was collected for each enrolled patient considering the three different spatial directions (x, y ,z), and the magnitude was calculated (δm for Mask and δc for Clipbox). Results: Data analysis showed a significant difference in δm and δc. t-Test statistics showed a high difference between Mask and Clipbox, in particular mean δm = (1.3 ± 0.1) mm and δc = (3.3 ± 1.2) mm (p-value <0.0001). Mask algorithm was performed in a very similar way with respect to the reference alignment, and the differences between these two procedures were of the order of 1 mm. Clipbox algorithm showed larger differences with manual registration. Conclusions: These results suggest that the Mask algorithm may be the optimal choice for patient setup verification in clinical practice for breast boost treatment in 3D-CRT.
乳腺增强放射治疗中锥束ct不同配准方法的比较
摘要简介:本研究的目的是比较在锥形束计算机断层扫描(CBCT)中,考虑手动对准和自动不同配准方法的情况下,隆胸三维适形放射治疗(3D-CRT)治疗中患者的几何不确定性。方法:本研究共选择85例患者。使用Elekta XVI系统(Clipbox和Mask)的自动配准算法,回顾性地进行了总共254次CBCT与计划计算机断层扫描(CT)的配准,以检测患者设置的不确定性。所有CBCT也由三名卫生专业人员手动匹配。使用卫生专业人员手动登记获得的平均偏移值作为参考。考虑到三个不同的空间方向(x、y、z),为每个入选患者收集自动算法偏移和参考值偏移之间的差异绝对值,并计算幅度(Mask的δm和Clipbox的δc)。结果:数据分析显示,δm和δc存在显著差异。t-检验统计数据显示Mask和Clipbox之间存在很大差异,特别是平均值δm=(1.3±0.1)mm和δc=(3.3±1.2)mm(p值<0.0001)。Mask算法的执行方式与参考比对非常相似,这两种程序之间的差异约为1 mm。Clipbox算法与手动配准显示出更大的差异。结论:这些结果表明,Mask算法可能是3D-CRT中乳腺增强治疗临床实践中患者设置验证的最佳选择。
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
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice is a peer-reviewed journal covering all of the current modalities specific to clinical oncology and radiotherapy. The journal aims to publish research from a wide range of styles and encourage debate and the exchange of information and opinion from within the field of radiotherapy practice and clinical oncology. The journal also aims to encourage technical evaluations and case studies as well as equipment reviews that will be of interest to an international radiotherapy audience.
×
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