Dose warping performance in deformable image registration in lung

Shunsuke Moriya, Hidenobu Tachibana, Nozomi Kitamura, Amit Sawant, Masanori Sato

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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 (Dmean), 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 Dmean 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 Dmean 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 Dmean and 30% for gEUD, even with a commercially available DIR tool.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)16-23
Number of pages8
JournalPhysica Medica
Volume37
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2017

Fingerprint

lungs
Tumor Burden
dosage
Lung
MIM (semiconductors)
Non-Small Cell Lung Carcinoma
tumors
expiration
inspiration
cancer
coefficients

Keywords

  • Deformable image registration
  • Four-dimensional computed tomography
  • Generalized equivalent uniform dose
  • Lung cancer

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Physics and Astronomy(all)

Cite this

Moriya, S., Tachibana, H., Kitamura, N., Sawant, A., & Sato, M. (2017). Dose warping performance in deformable image registration in lung. Physica Medica, 37, 16-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.03.016

Dose warping performance in deformable image registration in lung. / Moriya, Shunsuke; Tachibana, Hidenobu; Kitamura, Nozomi; Sawant, Amit; Sato, Masanori.

In: Physica Medica, Vol. 37, 01.05.2017, p. 16-23.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Moriya, S, Tachibana, H, Kitamura, N, Sawant, A & Sato, M 2017, 'Dose warping performance in deformable image registration in lung', Physica Medica, vol. 37, pp. 16-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.03.016
Moriya, Shunsuke ; Tachibana, Hidenobu ; Kitamura, Nozomi ; Sawant, Amit ; Sato, Masanori. / Dose warping performance in deformable image registration in lung. In: Physica Medica. 2017 ; Vol. 37. pp. 16-23.
@article{9c320f026132453babc2ae8b5bbf4d32,
title = "Dose warping performance in deformable image registration in lung",
abstract = "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 (Dmean), 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 Dmean 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 Dmean 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 Dmean and 30{\%} for gEUD, even with a commercially available DIR tool.",
keywords = "Deformable image registration, Four-dimensional computed tomography, Generalized equivalent uniform dose, Lung cancer",
author = "Shunsuke Moriya and Hidenobu Tachibana and Nozomi Kitamura and Amit Sawant and Masanori Sato",
year = "2017",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.03.016",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "37",
pages = "16--23",
journal = "Physica Medica",
issn = "1120-1797",
publisher = "Associazione Italiana di Fisica Medica",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Dose warping performance in deformable image registration in lung

AU - Moriya, Shunsuke

AU - Tachibana, Hidenobu

AU - Kitamura, Nozomi

AU - Sawant, Amit

AU - Sato, Masanori

PY - 2017/5/1

Y1 - 2017/5/1

N2 - 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 (Dmean), 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 Dmean 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 Dmean 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 Dmean and 30% for gEUD, even with a commercially available DIR tool.

AB - 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 (Dmean), 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 Dmean 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 Dmean 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 Dmean and 30% for gEUD, even with a commercially available DIR tool.

KW - Deformable image registration

KW - Four-dimensional computed tomography

KW - Generalized equivalent uniform dose

KW - Lung cancer

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85019365428&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85019365428&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.03.016

DO - 10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.03.016

M3 - Article

C2 - 28535910

AN - SCOPUS:85019365428

VL - 37

SP - 16

EP - 23

JO - Physica Medica

JF - Physica Medica

SN - 1120-1797

ER -