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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
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 |