Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Radiological Physics and Technology 4/2018

01-12-2018

Comparison between manual and automatic image registration in image-guided radiation therapy using megavoltage cone-beam computed tomography with an imaging beam line for prostate cancer

Authors: Takashi Hashido, Shinya Nakasone, Mari Fukao, Seiichi Ota, Shinichi Inoue

Published in: Radiological Physics and Technology | Issue 4/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

This study aimed to compare and assess the compatibility of the bone-structure-based manual and maximization of mutual information (MMI)-algorithm-based automatic image registration using megavoltage cone-beam computed tomography (MV-CBCT) images acquired with an imaging beam line. A total of 1163 MV-CBCT images from 30 prostate cancer patients were retrospectively analyzed. The differences between setup errors in three directions (left–right, LR; superior–inferior, SI; anterior–posterior, AP) of both registration methods were investigated. Pearson’s correlation coefficients (r) and Bland–Altman agreements were evaluated. Agreements were defined by a bias close to zero and 95% limits of agreement (LoA) less than ± 3 mm. The cumulative frequencies of the absolute differences between the two registration methods were calculated to assess the distributions of the setup error differences. There were significant differences (p < 0.001) in the setup errors between both registration methods. There were moderate (SI, r = 0.45) and strong positive correlation coefficients (LR, r = 0.74; AP, r = 0.72), whereas the 95% LoA (bias ± 1.96 × standard deviation of the setup error differences) were − 1.61 ± 4.29 mm (LR), − 0.41 ± 5.45 mm (SI), and 0.67 ± 4.29 mm (AP), revealing no agreements in all directions. The cumulative frequencies (%) of the cases with absolute setup error differences within 3 mm in each direction were 80.83% (LR), 81.86% (SI), and 90.71% (AP), with all directions having large proportions of > 3-mm differences. The MMI-algorithm-based automatic registration is not compatible with the bone-structure-based manual registration and should not be used alone for prostate cancer.
Literature
5.
22.
go back to reference Mayyas E, Chetty IJ, Chetvertkov M, Wen N, Neicu T, Nurushev T, Ren L, Lu M, Stricker H, Pradhan D, Movsas B, Elshaikh MA. Evaluation of multiple image-based modalities for image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) of prostate carcinoma: a prospective study. Med Phys. 2013;40(4):041707. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4794502.CrossRefPubMed Mayyas E, Chetty IJ, Chetvertkov M, Wen N, Neicu T, Nurushev T, Ren L, Lu M, Stricker H, Pradhan D, Movsas B, Elshaikh MA. Evaluation of multiple image-based modalities for image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) of prostate carcinoma: a prospective study. Med Phys. 2013;40(4):041707. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1118/​1.​4794502.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Comparison between manual and automatic image registration in image-guided radiation therapy using megavoltage cone-beam computed tomography with an imaging beam line for prostate cancer
Authors
Takashi Hashido
Shinya Nakasone
Mari Fukao
Seiichi Ota
Shinichi Inoue
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
Springer Singapore
Published in
Radiological Physics and Technology / Issue 4/2018
Print ISSN: 1865-0333
Electronic ISSN: 1865-0341
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-018-0476-z

Other articles of this Issue 4/2018

Radiological Physics and Technology 4/2018 Go to the issue

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgment