The accuracy of image registration for the brain and the nasopharynx using external anatomical landmarks

A patient alignment solution for lung SBRT setups based on a deformable registration technique

PURPOSE

In this work, the authors propose a novel registration strategy for translation-only correction scenarios of lung stereotactic body radiation therapy setups, which can achieve optimal dose coverage for tumors as well as preserve the consistency of registrations with minimal human interference.

METHODS

The proposed solution (centroid-to-centroidor CTC solution) uses the average four-dimensional CT (A4DCT) as the reference CT. The cone-beam CT (CBCT) is deformed to acquire a new centroid for the internal target volume (ITV) on the CBCT. The registration is then accomplished by simply aligning the centroids of the ITVs between the A4DCT and the CBCT. Sixty-seven cases using 64 patients (each case is associated with separate isocenters) have been investigated with the CTC method and compared with the conventional gray-value (G) mode and bone (B) mode registration methods. Dosimetric effects among the tree methods were demonstrated by 18 selected cases. The uncertainty of the CTC method has also been studied.

RESULTS

The registration results demonstrate the superiority of the CTC method over the other two methods. The differences in the D99 and D95 ITV dose coverage between the CTC method and the original plan is small (within 5%) for all of the selected cases except for one for which the tumor presented significant growth during the period between the CT scan and the treatment. Meanwhile, the dose coverage differences between the original plan and the registration results using either the B or G method are significant, as tumor positions varied dramatically, relative to the rib cage, from their positions on the original CT. The largest differences between the D99 and D95 dose coverage of the ITV using the B or G method versus the original plan are as high as 50%. The D20 differences between any of the methods versus the original plan are all less than 2%.

CONCLUSIONS

The CTC method can generate optimal dose coverage to tumors with much better consistency compared with either the G or B method, and it is especially useful when the tumor position varies greatly from its position on the original CT, relative to the rib cage.

Validation for 2D/3D registration. I: A new gold standard data set

PURPOSE

In this article, the authors propose a new gold standard data set for the validation of two-dimensional/three-dimensional (2D/3D) and 3D/3D image registration algorithms.

METHODS

A gold standard data set was produced using a fresh cadaver pig head with attached fiducial markers. The authors used several imaging modalities common in diagnostic imaging or radiotherapy, which include 64-slice computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging using T1, T2, and proton density sequences, and cone beam CT imaging data. Radiographic data were acquired using kilovoltage and megavoltage imaging techniques. The image information reflects both anatomy and reliable fiducial marker information and improves over existing data sets by the level of anatomical detail, image data quality, and soft-tissue content. The markers on the 3D and 2D image data were segmented using ANALYZE 10.0 (AnalyzeDirect, Inc., Kansas City, KN) and an in-house software.

RESULTS

The projection distance errors and the expected target registration errors over all the image data sets were found to be less than 2.71 and 1.88 mm, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The gold standard data set, obtained with state-of-the-art imaging technology, has the potential to improve the validation of 2D/3D and 3D/3D registration algorithms for image guided therapy.

A comprehensive study on decreasing the kilovoltage cone-beam CT dose by reducing the projection number

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of kilovoltage cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) on registration accuracy and image qualities with a reduced number of planar projections used in volumetric imaging reconstruction. The ultimate goal is to evaluate the possibility of reducing the patient dose while maintaining registration accuracy under different projection‐number schemes for various clinical sites. An Elekta Synergy Linear accelerator with an onboard CBCT system was used in this study. The quality of the Elekta XVI cone‐beam three‐dimensional volumetric images reconstructed with a decreasing number of projections was quantitatively evaluated by a Catphan phantom. Subsequently, we tested the registration accuracy of imaging data sets on three rigid anthropomorphic phantoms and three real patient sites under the reduced projection‐number (as low as 1/6th) reconstruction of CBCT data with different rectilinear shifts and rotations. CBCT scan results of the Catphan phantom indicated the CBCT images got noisier when the number of projections was reduced, but their spatial resolution and uniformity were hardly affected. The maximum registration errors under the small amount transformation of the reference CT images were found to be within 0.7 mm translation and 0.3° rotation. However, when the projection number was lower than one‐fourth of the full set with a large amount of transformation of reference CT images, the registration could easily be trapped into local minima solutions for a nonrigid anatomy. We concluded, by using projection‐number reduction strategy under conscientious care, imaging‐guided localization procedure could achieve a lower patient dose without losing the registration accuracy for various clinical sites and situations. A faster scanning time is the main advantage compared to the mA decrease‐based, dose‐reduction method.

PACS numbers: 87.57.C‐, 87.57.cf, 87.57.cj, 87.57.cm, 87.57.cp, 87.57.N‐, 87.57.nf, 87.57.nj

Image-to-patient registration techniques in head surgery

Frame-based stereotaxy was developed in neurosurgery at the beginning of the last century, evolving from atlas-based stereotaxy to stereotaxy based on the individual patient's image data. This established method is still in use in neurosurgery and radiotherapy. There have since been two main developments based on this concept: frameless stereotaxy and markerless registration. Frameless stereotactic systems ('navigation systems') replaced the cumbersome stereotactic frame by mechanically and later also optically or magnetically tracked instruments. Stereotaxy based on the individual patient's image data introduced the problem of patient-to-image data registration. The development of navigation systems based on frameless stereotaxy has dramatically increased its use in surgical disciplines other than neurosurgery, but image-guided surgery based on fiducial marker registration needs dedicated imaging for registration purposes, in addition to the diagnostic imaging that might have been performed. Markerless registration techniques can overcome the resulting additional cost and effort, and result in more widespread use of image-guided surgery techniques. In this review paper, the developments that led to today's navigation systems are outlined, and the applications and possibilities of these methods in the field of maxillofacial surgery are presented.

Volumetric Uncertainty in Radiotherapy

The technologies available to identify anatomical structures (including radiotherapy target and normal tissue 'volumes'), and to deliver dose accurately to these volumes, have improved significantly in the past decade. However, the ability of clinicians to identify volumes accurately and consistently in patients still suffers from uncertainties that arise from human error, inadequate training, lack of consensus on the derivation of volumes and inadequate characterisation of the accuracy and specificity of imaging technologies. Inadequate volume definition of a target can result in treatment failure and, consequently, disease progression; excessive volume may also lead to unnecessary patient injury. This is a serious problem in routine clinical care. In the context of large multi-centre clinical trials, uncertainty and inconsistency in tissue-volume reporting will be carried through to the analysis of treatment effect on outcome, which will subsequently influence the treatment of future patients. Strategies need to be set in place to ensure that the abilities and consistency of clinicians in defining volumes are aligned with the ability of new technologies to present volumetric information. This review seeks to define the concept of volumetric uncertainty and propose a conceptual model that has these errors evaluated and responded to separately. Specifically, we will explore the major causes, consequences of, and possible remediation of volumetric uncertainty, from the point of view of a multidisciplinary radiotherapy clinical environment.

Automatic MR volume registration and its evaluation for the pelvis and prostate

A three-dimensional (3D) mutual information registration method was created and used to register MRI volumes of the pelvis and prostate. It had special features to improve robustness. First, it used a multi-resolution approach and performed registration from low to high resolution. Second, it used two similarity measures, correlation coefficient at lower resolutions and mutual information at full resolution, because of their particular advantages. Third, we created a method to avoid local minima by restarting the registration with randomly perturbed parameters. The criterion for restarting was a correlation coefficient below an empirically determined threshold. Experiments determined the accuracy of registration under conditions found in potential applications in prostate cancer diagnosis, staging, treatment and interventional MRI (iMRI) guided therapies. Images were acquired in the diagnostic (supine) and treatment position (supine with legs raised). Images were also acquired as a function of bladder filling and the time interval between imaging sessions. Overall studies on three patients and three healthy volunteers, when both volumes in a pair were obtained in the diagnostic position under comparable conditions, bony landmarks and prostate 3D centroids were aligned within 1.6 +/- 0.2 mm and 1.4 +/- 0.2 mm, respectively, values only slightly larger than a voxel. Analysis suggests that actual errors are smaller because of the uncertainty in landmark localization and prostate segmentation. Between the diagnostic and treatment positions, bony landmarks continued to register well, but prostate centroids moved towards the posterior 2.8-3.4 mm. Manual cropping to remove voxels in the legs was necessary to register these images. In conclusion, automatic, rigid body registration is probably sufficiently accurate for many applications in prostate cancer. For potential iMRI-guided treatments, the small prostate displacement between the diagnostic and treatment positions can probably be avoided by acquiring volumes in similar positions and by reducing bladder and rectal volumes.