Accuracy quantification of a deformable image registration tool applied in a clinical setting

Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 237-245

  Hoffmann, Christoph ^a   Krause, Sonja ^a   Stoiber, Eva Maria ^a,b   Mohr, Angela ^a   Rieken, Stefan ^a   Schramm, Oliver ^a   Debus, Jürgen ^a   Sterzing, Florian ^a   Bendl, Rolf ^b,c   Giske, Kristina ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

^b GERMAN CANCER RESEARCH CENTER DKFZ   (Germany)

^c HEILBRONN UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Adaptive radiation therapy; Deformable image registration; Expert defined landmarks; Interobserver variations; Target registration error

Indexed keywords

EID: 84891814795     PISSN: None     EISSN: 15269914     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v15i1.4564     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Beavis AW, Abdel-Hamid A, Upadhyay S. Re-treatment of a lung tumour using a simple intensity-modulated radiotherapy approach. Br J Radiol. 2005;78(928):358-61.
2. Chen CC, Lee CC, Mah D, et al. Dose sparing of brainstem and spinal cord for re-irradiation recurrent head and neck cancer with intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Med Dosim. 2011;36(1):21-27.
3. Damast S, Wright J, Bilsky M, et al. Impact of dose on local failure rates after image-guided reirradiation of recurrent paraspinal metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;81(3):819-26.
4. Taylor A and Powell ME. An assessment of interfractional uterine and cervical motion: implications for radiotherapy target volume definition in gynaecological cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2008;88(2):250-57.
5. Chan P, Dinniwell R, Haider MA, et al. Inter- and intrafractional tumor and organ movement in patients with cervical cancer undergoing radiotherapy: acinematic-MRI point-of-interest study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;70(5):1507-15.
6. Castadot P, Geets X, Lee JA, Christian N, Gregoire V. Assessment by a deformable registration method of the volumetric and positional changes of target volumes and organs at risk in pharyngo-laryngeal tumors treated with concomitant chemo-radiation. Radiother Oncol. 2010;95(2):209-17.
7. Hof H, Rhein B, Haering P, Kopp-Schneider A, Debus J, Herfarth K. 4D-CT-based target volume definition in stereotactic radiotherapy of lung tumors: comparison with a conventional technique using individual margins. Radiother Oncol. 2009;93(3):419-23.
8. Hamming-Vrieze O, van Kranen SR, van Beek S, et al. Evaluation of tumor shape variability in head-and-neck cancer patients over the course of radiation therapy using implanted gold markers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;84(2):e201-07.
9. Grigic A, Nestle U, Schaefer-Schuler A, et al. Nonrigid versus rigid registration of thoracic 18F-FDG PET and CT in patients with lung cancer: an intraindividual comparison of different breathing maneuvers. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(12):1921-26.
10. Ceylan C, van der Heide UA, Bol GH, Lagendijk JJ, Kotte AN. Assessment of rigid multi-modality image registration consistency using the multiple sub-volume registration (MSR) method. Phys Med Biol. 2005;50(10):N101-08.
11. Xing L, Siebers J, Keall P. Computational challenges for image-guided radiation therapy: framework and current research. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2007;17(4):245-57.
12. Li X, Wang X, Li Y, Zhang X. A 4D IMRT planning method using deformable image registration to improve tissue sparing with contemporary delivery techniques. Radiat Oncol. 2011;6:83.
13. Lawson JD, Schreibmann E, Jani AB, Fox T Quantitative evaluation of a cone-beam computed tomography-planning computed tomography deformable image registration method for adaptive radiation therapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2007;8(4):2432.
14. West J, Fitzpatrick JM, Wang MY, et al. Comparison and evaluation of retrospective intermodality brain image registration techniques. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1997;21(4):554-66.
15. Mencarelli A, van Beek S, van Kranen S, Rasch C, van Herk M, Sonke JJ. Validation of deformable registration in head and neck cancer using analysis of variance. Med Phys. 2012;39(11):6879-84.
16. st International Conference CVRMed '95, Nice, France, Apr 3-6, 1995. NY and Heidelberg: Springer; 1995. p. 287-92.
17. Palma DA, van Sörnsen de Koste JR, Verbakel WF, Senan S. A new approach to quantifying lung damage after stereotactic body radiation therapy. Acta Oncol. 2011;50(4):509-17.
18. Kirby N, Chuang C, Ueda U, Pouliot J. The need for application-based adaptation of deformable image registration. Med Phys. 2013;40(1)[in press].
19. Castillo R, Castillo E, Guerra R, et al. A framework for evaluation of deformable image registration spatial accuracy using large landmark point sets. Phys Med Biol. 2009;54(7):1849-70.
20. Brock KK. Results of a multi-institution deformable registration accuracy study (MIDRAS). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76(2):583-96.
21. Sweeney RA, Seubert B, Stark S, et al. Accuracy and inter-observer variability of 3D versus 4D cone-beam CT based image-guidance in SBRT for lung tumors. Radiat Oncol. 2012;7:81.
22. Stapleford LJ, Lawson JD, Perkins C, et al. Evaluation of automatic atlas-based lymph node segmentation for head-and-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;77(3):959-66.
23. Hardcastle N, Tome WA, Cannon DM, et al. A multi-institution evaluation of deformable image registration algorithms for automatic organ delineation in adaptive head and neck radiotherapy. Radiat Oncol. 2012;7:90.
24. Malsch U, Thieke C, Huber PE, Bendl R. An enhanced block matching algorithm for fast elastic registration in adaptive radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol. 2006;51(19):4789-806.
25. Söhn M, Birkner M, Chi Y, et al. Model-independent, multimodality deformable image registration by local matching of anatomical features and minimization of elastic energy. Med Phys. 2008;35(3):866-78.
26. Schultheiss TE, Tome WA, Orton CG. Point/counterpoint: it is not appropriate to "deform" dose along with deformable image registration in adaptive radiotherapy. Med Phys. 2012;39(11):6531-33.