Dose warping performance in deformable image registration in lung
Dose warping performance in deformable image registration in lung
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.03.016
复制
发表时间：
2017-05-01
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
Sato, Masanori
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Moriya, Shunsuke;Tachibana, Hidenobu;Sato, Masanori
目的：目前尚不清楚空间精度是否能反映变形剂量分布的影响。在本研究中，我们使用剂量测定参数比较了使用NiftyReg的内部可变形图像配准（RESIDENT）系统与两种市售系统MIM Maestro（MIM）和Velocity AI方法：对于19例非小细胞肺癌患者，使用三种呼吸机系统中的每一种将吸气峰（0%）-4DCT图像变形为呼气峰（50%）-4DCT图像，其包括变形矢量场（DVF）的计算。然后使用DVF对0%总肿瘤体积（GTV）和0%剂量分布进行变形。使用广义等效均匀剂量（gEUD）、平均剂量（D均值）和三维（3D）伽马指数（标准：3 mm/3%）评价GTV剂量分布的一致性。此外，一个骰子相似系数（DSC）被用来衡量GTV volumes.Results的相似性：D-均值和gEUD表现出良好的原始和变形的剂量分布之间的协议（差异一般小于3%），在17名患者。在另外2例患者中，Velocity系统导致gEUD差异为50.1%和29.7%，D均值差异为11.8%和4.78%。伽马指数比较显示，在内部的辐射与MIM，MIM与Velocity.Conclusions：微调的内部辐射系统可以实现类似的空间和剂量精度的商业系统的统计学显着差异。必须小心，因为我们发现D均值的误差超过5%，gEUD的误差超过30%，即使使用市售的工具。(C)2017年意大利医学协会。由爱思唯尔有限公司出版。保留所有权利。
Purpose: It is unclear that spatial accuracy can reflect the impact of deformed dose distribution. In this study, we used dosimetric parameters to compare an in-house deformable image registration (DIR) system using NiftyReg, with two commercially available systems, MIM Maestro (MIM) and Velocity AI (Velocity).Methods: For 19 non-small-cell lung cancer patients, the peak inspiration (0%)-4DCT images were deformed to the peak expiration (50%)-4DCT images using each of the three DIR systems, which included computation of the deformation vector fields (DVF). The 0%-gross tumor volume (GTV) and the 0%-dose distribution were also then deformed using the DVFs. The agreement in the dose distributions for the GTVs was evaluated using generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD), mean dose (D-mean), and three-dimensional (3D) gamma index (criteria: 3 mm/3%). Additionally, a Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) was used to measure the similarity of the GTV volumes.Results: D-mean and gEUD demonstrated good agreement between the original and deformed dose distributions (differences were generally less than 3%) in 17 of the patients. In two other patients, the Velocity system resulted in differences in gEUD of 50.1% and 29.7% and in D-mean of 11.8% and 4.78%. The gamma index comparison showed statistically significant differences for the in-house DIR vs. MIM, and MIM vs. Velocity.Conclusions: The finely tuned in-house DIR system could achieve similar spatial and dose accuracy to the commercial systems. Care must be taken, as we found errors of more than 5% for D-mean and 30% for gEUD, even with a commercially available DIR tool. (C) 2017 Associazione Italiana di Fisica Medica. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.