Multi-System Verification of Registrations for Image-Guided Radiotherapy in Clinical Trials
Creators
- 1. Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA (United States)
- 2. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, American College of Radiology, Philadelphia, PA (United States)
- 3. Washington University, Saint Louis, MO (United States)
- 4. UC Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, CA (United States)
- 5. Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI (United States)
Description
Purpose: To provide quantitative information on the image registration differences from multiple systems for image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) credentialing and margin reduction in clinical trials. Methods and Materials: Images and IGRT shift results from three different treatment systems (Tomotherapy Hi-Art, Elekta Synergy, Varian Trilogy) have been sent from various institutions to the Image-Guided Therapy QA Center (ITC) for evaluation for the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) trials. Nine patient datasets (five head-and-neck and four prostate) were included in the comparison, with each patient having 1-4 daily individual IGRT studies. In all cases, daily shifts were re-calculated by re-registration of the planning CT with the daily IGRT data using three independent software systems (MIMvista, FocalSim, VelocityAI). Automatic fusion was used in all calculations. The results were compared with those submitted from institutions. Similar regions of interest (ROIs) and same initial positions were used in registrations for inter-system comparison. Different slice spacings for CBCT sampling and different ROIs for registration were used in some cases to observe the variation of registration due to these factors. Results: For the 54 comparisons with head-and-neck datasets, the absolute values of differences of the registration results between different systems were 2.6 ± 2.1 mm (mean ± SD; range 0.1-8.6 mm, left-right [LR]), 1.7 ± 1.3 mm (0.0-4.9 mm, superior-inferior [SI]), and 1.8 ± 1.1 mm (0.1-4.0 mm, anterior-posterior [AP]). For the 66 comparisons in prostate cases, the differences were 1.1 ± 1.0 mm (0.0-4.6 mm, LR), 2.1 ± 1.7 mm (0.0-6.6 mm, SI), and 2.0 ± 1.8 mm (0.1-6.9 mm, AP). The differences caused by the slice spacing variation were relatively small, and the different ROI selections in FocalSim and MIMvista also had limited impact. Conclusion: The extent of differences was reported when different systems were used for image registration. Careful examination and quality assurance of the image registration process are crucial before considering margin reduction using IGRT in clinical trials.
Availability note (English)
Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.11.019Additional details
Identifiers
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.11.019;
- PII
- S0360-3016(10)03567-4;
Publishing Information
- Journal Title
- International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics
- Journal Volume
- 81
- Journal Issue
- 1
- Journal Page Range
- p. 305-312
- ISSN
- 0360-3016
- CODEN
- IOBPD3
INIS
- Country of Publication
- United States
- Country of Input or Organization
- International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
- INIS RN
- 43066064
- Subject category
- S62: RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE;
- Descriptors DEI
- CLINICAL TRIALS; COMPUTER CODES; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; CT-GUIDED RADIOTHERAPY; HEAD; NECK; PROSTATE; QUALITY ASSURANCE
- Descriptors DEC
- BODY; DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES; GLANDS; MALE GENITALS; MEDICINE; NUCLEAR MEDICINE; ORGANS; RADIOLOGY; RADIOTHERAPY; TESTING; THERAPY; TOMOGRAPHY
Optional Information
- Copyright
- Copyright (c) 2011 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.