MENU

Click here to

×

Are you sure ?

Yes, do it No, cancel
  1. Home
  2. Meeting Program
  3. All Sessions
  4. All Imaging General ePoster Discussion
  5. Evaluation of a Commercial DIR Platform for Contour Propagation in Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with IMRT/VMAT

Evaluation of a Commercial DIR Platform for Contour Propagation in Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with IMRT/VMAT

J Hammers1*, S Pirozzi2 , D Lindsay3 , O Kaidar-Person4 , N Papanikolaou5 , S Stathakis6 , R Chen7 , S Das8 , P Mavroidis9 , (1) ,Chapel Hill, NC, (2) MIM Software Inc., Cleveland, OH, (3) University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, (4) Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, ,(5) Ut Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, (6) University Of Texas Health, San Antonio, TX, (7) UNC Health Care, Chapel Hill, NC, (8) University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, (9) university North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC

Presentations

(Tuesday, 7/31/2018) 10:30 AM - 11:00 AM

Room: Exhibit Hall | Forum 9

Purpose: To assess the performance and limitations of a deformable image registration (DIR) algorithm developed on a commercial platform for single-modality, daily CT-on-rails (CTOR) image guided patients as well as multi-modality, daily Cone Beam CT (CBCT) image guided patients.

Methods: 20 prostate cancer patients treated with IMRT/VMAT were selected for analysis. A total of 453 fractions across those patients were analysed. Image data was imported into MIM (v.6.8b, MIM Software, Inc., Cleveland, OH) and the DIR algorithm was applied to register each fraction with the planning CT. The corrected manually drawn contours delineating the bladder and rectum were utilized for comparison against the DIR propagated contours in each fraction. Four metrics were utilized in the evaluation of contour similarity.

Results: 95% Confidence Intervals were assessed via a Linear Mixed Effect model for the Hausdorff Distance, Mean Distance to Agreement, Dice Similarity Coefficient, and Jaccard indices. Hausdorff Distance comparing manual with propagated contours was assessed at 18.47±5.87mm for bladder and 17.32±2.52mm for rectum. Mean Distance to Agreement was assessed at 4.29±1.28mm for bladder and 3.12±0.54mm for rectum. Dice Similarity Coefficient was assessed at 0.739±0.053 for bladder and 0.736±0.032 for rectum. Jaccard was assessed at 0.602±0.066 for bladder and 0.593±0.04 for rectum. A subfactor analysis was performed per modality (CTOR vs. CBCT) and time (fraction). Statistical significance at α=0.05 was observed for manual vs. table shifted deformably propagated contours for rectum for all the metrics except Hausdorff Distance.

Conclusion: The high variance of Hausdorff Distance across all automated methods for bladder indicates widely variable agreement across fractions for all patients. Lower variance across all modalities, methods, and metrics were observed for rectum. Screening of image guidance for substantial differences in bladder and rectal filling compared with the planning CT reference could aid in identifying fractions for which automated DIR would prove insufficient.

Keywords

Cone-beam CT, Image Guidance, Image Fusion

Taxonomy

IM/TH- Image registration : CT

Contact Email

Additional Links