Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of automated image registration algorithm for image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT)

  • Scientific Paper
  • Published:
Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The performance of an image registration (IR) software was evaluated for automatically detecting known errors simulated through the movement of ExactCouch using an onboard imager. Twenty-seven set-up errors (11 translations, 10 rotations, 6 translation and rotation) were simulated by introducing offset up to ±15 mm in three principal axes and 0° to ±1° in yaw. For every simulated error, orthogonal kV radiograph and cone beam CT were acquired in half-fan (CBCT_HF) and full-fan (CBCT_FF) mode. The orthogonal radiographs and CBCTs were automatically co-registered to reference digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) and planning CT using 2D–2D and 3D–3D matching software based on mutual information transformation. A total of 79 image sets (ten pairs of kV X-rays and 69 session of CBCT) were analyzed to determine the (a) reproducibility of IR outcome and (b) residual error, defined as the deviation between the known and IR software detected displacement in translation and rotation. The reproducibility of automatic IR of planning CT and repeat CBCTs taken with and without kilovoltage detector and kilovoltage X-ray source arm movement was excellent with mean SD of 0.1 mm in the translation and 0.0° in rotation. The average residual errors in translation and rotation were within ±0.5 mm and ±0.2°, ±0.9 mm and ±0.3°, and ±0.4 mm and ±0.2° for setup simulated only in translation, rotation, and both translation and rotation. The mean (SD) 3D vector was largest when only translational error was simulated and was 1.7 (1.1) mm for 2D–2D match of reference DRR with radiograph, 1.4 (0.6) and 1.3 (0.5) mm for 3D–3D match of reference CT and CBCT with full fan and half fan, respectively. In conclusion, the image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) system is accurate within 1.8 mm and 0.4° and reproducible under control condition. Inherent error from any IGRT process should be taken into account while setting clinical IGRT protocol.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mackie TR, Kapatoes J, Ruchala K et al (2003) Image guidance for precise conformal radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 56:89–105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jaffray DA, Siewerdsen JH, Wong JW et al (2002) Flat-panel cone beam computed tomography for image-guided radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 53:1337–1349

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Engelsman M, Damen EMF, Jaeger KD et al (2001) The effect of breathing and set-up errors on the cumulative dose to a lung tumor. Radiother Oncol 60:95–105

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Cho BCJ, Van HM, Mijnheer B et al (2002) The effect of set-up uncertainties, contour changes, and tissue inhomogeneities on target dose-volume histograms. Med Phys 29:2305–2318

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hong TS, Tome WA, Chappell RJ et al (2005) The impact of daily setup variations on head-and-neck intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 61:779–788

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Guckenberger M, Meyer J, Vordermark D et al (2006) Magnitude and clinical relevance of translational and rotational patient setup errors: a cone-beam CT study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 65:934–942

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schwarz M, Van der Geer J, Van Herk M et al (2006) Impact of geometrical uncertainties on 3D CRT and IMRT dose distributions for lung cancer treatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 65:1260–1269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dawson LA, Sharpe MB (2006) Image-guided radiotherapy: rational, benefits, and limitations. Lancet Oncol 7:848–858

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Verellen D, Ridder MD, Storme G (2008) A (short) history of image-guided radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 86:4–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Grills I, Hugo G, Kestin L et al (2008) Image-guided radiotherapy via daily online cone-beam CT substantially reduces margin requirements for stereotactic lung radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 70:1045–1056

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Chung HT, Xia P, Chan LW et al (2009) Does image-guided radiotherapy improve toxicity profile in whole pelvic-treated high-risk prostate cancer? Comparison between IG-IMRT and IMRT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 73:53–60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Galerani AP, Grills I, Hugo G et al (2010) Dosimetric impact of online correction via cone-beam CT-based image guidance for stereotactic lung radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 78:1571–1578

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Dawson LA, Jaffray DA (2007) Advances in image-guided radiation therapy. J Clin Oncol 25:938–946

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. AAPM Report no 104 (2009) The role of in-room kV X-ray imaging for patient setup and target localization. American Association of Physicists in Medicine, One Physics Ellipse, College Park, MD 20740-3846

  15. Jaffray DA, Siewerdsen JH (2000) Cone-beam computed tomography with a flat-panel imager: initial performance characterization. Med Phys 27:1311–1323

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Bissonnette JP, Moseley DJ, Jaffray David A (2005) A quality assurance program for image quality of cone-beam CT guidance in radiation therapy. Med Phys 35:1807–1815

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Yoo S, Kim GY, Hammoud R et al (2006) A quality assurance program for the on-board imagers. Med Phys 33:4431–4447

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bissonnette JP, Moseley D, White E et al (2008) Quality assurance for the geometric accuracy of cone-beam CT guidance in radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 71:S57–S61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Verellen D, Soete G, Linthout N et al (2003) Quality assurance of a system for improved target localization and patient set-up that combines real-time infrared tracking and stereoscopic X-ray imaging. Radiother Oncol 67:129–141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Fox T, Huntzinger C, Johnstone P et al (2006) Performance evaluation of an automated image registration algorithm using an integrated kilovoltage imaging and guidance system. J Appl Clin Med Phys 7:97–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Meyer J, Wilbert J, Baier K et al (2007) Positioning accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography in combination with a hexapod robot treatment table. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 67:1220–1228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Letourneau D, Martinez A, Lockman D et al (2005) Assessment of residual error for online cone-beam CT guided treatment of prostate cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 62:1239–1246

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ploquin N, Rangel A, Dunscombe, P (2008) Phantom evaluation of a commercially available three modality image-guided radiation therapy system. Med Phys 35:5303–5311

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kessler ML (2006) Image registration and data fusion in radiation therapy. Br J Radiol. 79:S99–S108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Murphy M (1999) The importance of computed tomography slice thickness in radiographic patient positioning for radiosurgery. Med Phys 26:171–175

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital and Medical Research Institute, Andheri (W), Mumbai, 400053, India

    Shamurailatpam Dayananda Sharma, Vaibhav Mhatre & Malhotra Heigrujam

  2. Department of BioPhysics, University of Mumbai, Vidyanagiri, Santacruz(E), Mumbai, 400053, India

    Prabhakar Dongre

Authors
  1. Shamurailatpam Dayananda Sharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Prabhakar Dongre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vaibhav Mhatre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Malhotra Heigrujam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shamurailatpam Dayananda Sharma.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sharma, S.D., Dongre, P., Mhatre, V. et al. Evaluation of automated image registration algorithm for image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT). Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 35, 311–319 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-012-0158-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-012-0158-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation