Cargando…

Utility of deformable image registration for adaptive prostate cancer treatment. Analysis and comparison of two commercially available algorithms

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to assess and compare the capabilities of two commercially available deformable image registration algorithms implemented in Raystation 9A (A(1)) and Velocity AI (A(2)) for possible usage in adaptive prostate radiotherapy based on the propagation of anatomical contours...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Posiewnik, Michał, Piotrowski, Tomasz
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9948872/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34906406
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.zemedi.2021.10.001
_version_ 1784892871379255296
author Posiewnik, Michał
Piotrowski, Tomasz
author_facet Posiewnik, Michał
Piotrowski, Tomasz
author_sort Posiewnik, Michał
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to assess and compare the capabilities of two commercially available deformable image registration algorithms implemented in Raystation 9A (A(1)) and Velocity AI (A(2)) for possible usage in adaptive prostate radiotherapy based on the propagation of anatomical contours from computed tomography (CT) images to cone-beam CT (CBCT) images. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ten patients were retrospectively selected from a group treated for localized prostate cancer. The propagation of rectum contours was analyzed in a set of CT-CBCT pairs. Two independent observers carried out qualitative analysis using the two-level descriptive scale (meet/fail). Quantitative analysis was done using landmark points distances based on implanted markers as navigation points and differently obtained contours (manually and automatically using DIR algorithms). Quantitative analysis was taken on sets preselected by qualitative analysis. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis shows that 83.7% of the rectum contours were scored identically (meet or fail) for both algorithms, from which 53.5% and 55.8% are failed results for A(1) and A(2), respectively. For the rectum size (RWD parameter), differences between referenced and deformation-based values were 5.5 and 5.8 mm, and for the rectum wall, the prostate marker distance (WMD parameter) was 4.5 and 5.5 mm for A(1) and A(2), respectively. The differences between the WMD parameters were statistically significant (p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: In both tested algorithms, neither effectiveness nor measured uncertainties in the propagation of rectum contour process in prostate patient cases were satisfactory. Careful selection of input images followed by case/set-based verification of every deformable registration is a substantial step to avoid inappropriate results.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9948872
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99488722023-02-23 Utility of deformable image registration for adaptive prostate cancer treatment. Analysis and comparison of two commercially available algorithms Posiewnik, Michał Piotrowski, Tomasz Z Med Phys Short Communication INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to assess and compare the capabilities of two commercially available deformable image registration algorithms implemented in Raystation 9A (A(1)) and Velocity AI (A(2)) for possible usage in adaptive prostate radiotherapy based on the propagation of anatomical contours from computed tomography (CT) images to cone-beam CT (CBCT) images. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ten patients were retrospectively selected from a group treated for localized prostate cancer. The propagation of rectum contours was analyzed in a set of CT-CBCT pairs. Two independent observers carried out qualitative analysis using the two-level descriptive scale (meet/fail). Quantitative analysis was done using landmark points distances based on implanted markers as navigation points and differently obtained contours (manually and automatically using DIR algorithms). Quantitative analysis was taken on sets preselected by qualitative analysis. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis shows that 83.7% of the rectum contours were scored identically (meet or fail) for both algorithms, from which 53.5% and 55.8% are failed results for A(1) and A(2), respectively. For the rectum size (RWD parameter), differences between referenced and deformation-based values were 5.5 and 5.8 mm, and for the rectum wall, the prostate marker distance (WMD parameter) was 4.5 and 5.5 mm for A(1) and A(2), respectively. The differences between the WMD parameters were statistically significant (p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: In both tested algorithms, neither effectiveness nor measured uncertainties in the propagation of rectum contour process in prostate patient cases were satisfactory. Careful selection of input images followed by case/set-based verification of every deformable registration is a substantial step to avoid inappropriate results. Elsevier 2021-12-11 /pmc/articles/PMC9948872/ /pubmed/34906406 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.zemedi.2021.10.001 Text en © 2022 Published by Elsevier GmbH. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Short Communication
Posiewnik, Michał
Piotrowski, Tomasz
Utility of deformable image registration for adaptive prostate cancer treatment. Analysis and comparison of two commercially available algorithms
title Utility of deformable image registration for adaptive prostate cancer treatment. Analysis and comparison of two commercially available algorithms
title_full Utility of deformable image registration for adaptive prostate cancer treatment. Analysis and comparison of two commercially available algorithms
title_fullStr Utility of deformable image registration for adaptive prostate cancer treatment. Analysis and comparison of two commercially available algorithms
title_full_unstemmed Utility of deformable image registration for adaptive prostate cancer treatment. Analysis and comparison of two commercially available algorithms
title_short Utility of deformable image registration for adaptive prostate cancer treatment. Analysis and comparison of two commercially available algorithms
title_sort utility of deformable image registration for adaptive prostate cancer treatment. analysis and comparison of two commercially available algorithms
topic Short Communication
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9948872/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34906406
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.zemedi.2021.10.001
work_keys_str_mv AT posiewnikmichał utilityofdeformableimageregistrationforadaptiveprostatecancertreatmentanalysisandcomparisonoftwocommerciallyavailablealgorithms
AT piotrowskitomasz utilityofdeformableimageregistrationforadaptiveprostatecancertreatmentanalysisandcomparisonoftwocommerciallyavailablealgorithms