Evaluation of the accuracy of deformable image registration on MRI with a physical phantom

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has gained popularity in radiation therapy simulation because it provides superior soft tissue contrast, which facilitates more accurate target delineation compared with computed tomography (CT) and does not expose the patient to ionizing radiation. However, image registration errors in commercial software have not been widely reported. Here we evaluated the accuracy of deformable image registration (DIR) by using a physical phantom for MRI. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We used the “Wuphantom” for end‐to‐end testing of DIR accuracy for MRI. This acrylic phantom is filled with water and includes several fillable inserts to simulate various tissue shapes and properties. Deformations and changes in anatomic locations are simulated by changing the rotations of the phantom and inserts. We used Varian Velocity DIR software (v4.0) and CT (head and neck protocol) and MR (T1‐ and T2‐weighted head protocol) images to test DIR accuracy between image modalities (MRI vs CT) and within the same image modality (MRI vs MRI) in 11 rotation deformation scenarios. Large inserts filled with Mobil DTE oil were used to simulate fatty tissue, and small inserts filled with agarose gel were used to simulate tissues slightly denser than water (e.g., prostate). Contours of all inserts were generated before DIR to provide a baseline for contour size and shape. DIR was done with the MR Correctable Deformable DIR method, and all deformed contours were compared with the original contours. The Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and mean distance to agreement (MDA) were used to quantitatively validate DIR accuracy. We also used large and small regions of interest (ROIs) during between‐modality DIR tests to simulate validation of DIR accuracy for organs at risk (OARs) and propagation of individual clinical target volume (CTV) contours. RESULTS: No significant differences in DIR accuracy were found for T1:T1 and T2:T2 comparisons (P > 0.05). DIR was less accurate for between‐modality comparisons than for same‐modality comparisons, and was less accurate for T1 vs CT than for T2 vs CT (P < 0.001). For between‐modality comparisons, use of a small ROI improved DIR accuracy for both T1 and T2 images. CONCLUSION: The simple design of the Wuphantom allows seamless testing of DIR; here we validated the accuracy of MRI DIR in end‐to‐end testing. T2 images had superior DIR accuracy compared with T1 images. Use of small ROIs improves DIR accuracy for target contour propagation.