TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of user-directed and automatic mapping of the planned isocenter to treatment space for prostate IGRT
AU - Xu, Zijie
AU - Chen, Ronald
AU - Wang, Andrew
AU - Kress, Andrea
AU - Foskey, Mark
AU - Qin, An
AU - Cullip, Timothy
AU - Tracton, Gregg
AU - Chang, Sha
AU - Tepper, Joel
AU - Yan, Di
AU - Chaney, Edward
PY - 2013
Y1 - 2013
N2 - Image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT), adaptive radiotherapy (ART), and online reoptimization rely on accurate mapping of the radiation beam isocenter(s) from planning to treatment space. This mapping involves rigid and/or nonrigid registration of planning (pCT) and intratreatment (tCT) CT images. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively compare a fully automatic approach, including a non-rigid step, against a user-directed rigid method implemented in a clinical IGRT protocol for prostate cancer. Isocenters resulting from automatic and clinical mappings were compared to reference isocenters carefully determined in each tCT. Comparison was based on displacements from the reference isocenters and prostate dose-volume histograms (DVHs). Ten patients with a total of 243 tCTs were investigated. Fully automatic registration was found to be as accurate as the clinical protocol but more precise for all patients. The average of the unsigned x, y, and z offsets and the standard deviations (σ) of the signed offsets computed over all images were (avg. ± σ (mm)): 1.1 ± 1.4, 1.8 ± 2.3, 2.5 ± 3.5 for the clinical protocol and 0.6 ± 0.8, 1.1 ± 1.5 and 1.1 ± 1.4 for the automatic method. No failures or outliers from automatic mapping were observed, while 8 outliers occurred for the clinical protocol.
AB - Image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT), adaptive radiotherapy (ART), and online reoptimization rely on accurate mapping of the radiation beam isocenter(s) from planning to treatment space. This mapping involves rigid and/or nonrigid registration of planning (pCT) and intratreatment (tCT) CT images. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively compare a fully automatic approach, including a non-rigid step, against a user-directed rigid method implemented in a clinical IGRT protocol for prostate cancer. Isocenters resulting from automatic and clinical mappings were compared to reference isocenters carefully determined in each tCT. Comparison was based on displacements from the reference isocenters and prostate dose-volume histograms (DVHs). Ten patients with a total of 243 tCTs were investigated. Fully automatic registration was found to be as accurate as the clinical protocol but more precise for all patients. The average of the unsigned x, y, and z offsets and the standard deviations (σ) of the signed offsets computed over all images were (avg. ± σ (mm)): 1.1 ± 1.4, 1.8 ± 2.3, 2.5 ± 3.5 for the clinical protocol and 0.6 ± 0.8, 1.1 ± 1.5 and 1.1 ± 1.4 for the automatic method. No failures or outliers from automatic mapping were observed, while 8 outliers occurred for the clinical protocol.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84890060461&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84890060461&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1155/2013/892152
DO - 10.1155/2013/892152
M3 - Article
C2 - 24348526
AN - SCOPUS:84890060461
SN - 1687-4188
VL - 2013
JO - International Journal of Biomedical Imaging
JF - International Journal of Biomedical Imaging
M1 - 892152
ER -