Cargando…

Comparison of manual and automatic MR‐CT registration for radiotherapy of prostate cancer

In image‐guided radiotherapy (IGRT) of prostate cancer, delineation of the clinical target volume (CTV) often relies on magnetic resonance (MR) because of its good soft‐tissue visualization. Registration of MR and computed tomography (CT) is required in order to add this accurate delineation to the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Korsager, Anne Sofie, Carl, Jesper, Østergaard, Lasse Riis
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5690943/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27167285
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i3.6088
_version_ 1783279699243302912
author Korsager, Anne Sofie
Carl, Jesper
Østergaard, Lasse Riis
author_facet Korsager, Anne Sofie
Carl, Jesper
Østergaard, Lasse Riis
author_sort Korsager, Anne Sofie
collection PubMed
description In image‐guided radiotherapy (IGRT) of prostate cancer, delineation of the clinical target volume (CTV) often relies on magnetic resonance (MR) because of its good soft‐tissue visualization. Registration of MR and computed tomography (CT) is required in order to add this accurate delineation to the dose planning CT. An automatic approach for local MR‐CT registration of the prostate has previously been developed using a voxel property‐based registration as an alternative to a manual landmark‐based registration. The aim of this study is to compare the two registration approaches and to investigate the clinical potential for replacing the manual registration with the automatic registration. Registrations and analysis were performed for 30 prostate cancer patients treated with IGRT using a Ni‐Ti prostate stent as a fiducial marker. The comparison included computing translational and rotational differences between the approaches, visual inspection, and computing the overlap of the CTV. The computed mean translational difference was 1.65, 1.60, and 1.80 mm and the computed mean rotational difference was 1.51°, 3.93°, and 2.09° in the superior/inferior, anterior/posterior, and medial/lateral direction, respectively. The sensitivity of overlap was 87%. The results demonstrate that the automatic registration approach performs registrations comparable to the manual registration. PACS number(s): 87.57.nj, 87.61.‐c, 87.57.Q‐, 87.56.J‐
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5690943
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56909432018-04-02 Comparison of manual and automatic MR‐CT registration for radiotherapy of prostate cancer Korsager, Anne Sofie Carl, Jesper Østergaard, Lasse Riis J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics In image‐guided radiotherapy (IGRT) of prostate cancer, delineation of the clinical target volume (CTV) often relies on magnetic resonance (MR) because of its good soft‐tissue visualization. Registration of MR and computed tomography (CT) is required in order to add this accurate delineation to the dose planning CT. An automatic approach for local MR‐CT registration of the prostate has previously been developed using a voxel property‐based registration as an alternative to a manual landmark‐based registration. The aim of this study is to compare the two registration approaches and to investigate the clinical potential for replacing the manual registration with the automatic registration. Registrations and analysis were performed for 30 prostate cancer patients treated with IGRT using a Ni‐Ti prostate stent as a fiducial marker. The comparison included computing translational and rotational differences between the approaches, visual inspection, and computing the overlap of the CTV. The computed mean translational difference was 1.65, 1.60, and 1.80 mm and the computed mean rotational difference was 1.51°, 3.93°, and 2.09° in the superior/inferior, anterior/posterior, and medial/lateral direction, respectively. The sensitivity of overlap was 87%. The results demonstrate that the automatic registration approach performs registrations comparable to the manual registration. PACS number(s): 87.57.nj, 87.61.‐c, 87.57.Q‐, 87.56.J‐ John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016-05-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5690943/ /pubmed/27167285 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i3.6088 Text en © 2016 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Korsager, Anne Sofie
Carl, Jesper
Østergaard, Lasse Riis
Comparison of manual and automatic MR‐CT registration for radiotherapy of prostate cancer
title Comparison of manual and automatic MR‐CT registration for radiotherapy of prostate cancer
title_full Comparison of manual and automatic MR‐CT registration for radiotherapy of prostate cancer
title_fullStr Comparison of manual and automatic MR‐CT registration for radiotherapy of prostate cancer
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of manual and automatic MR‐CT registration for radiotherapy of prostate cancer
title_short Comparison of manual and automatic MR‐CT registration for radiotherapy of prostate cancer
title_sort comparison of manual and automatic mr‐ct registration for radiotherapy of prostate cancer
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5690943/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27167285
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i3.6088
work_keys_str_mv AT korsagerannesofie comparisonofmanualandautomaticmrctregistrationforradiotherapyofprostatecancer
AT carljesper comparisonofmanualandautomaticmrctregistrationforradiotherapyofprostatecancer
AT østergaardlasseriis comparisonofmanualandautomaticmrctregistrationforradiotherapyofprostatecancer