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.
- Deformable image registration
- Four-dimensional computed tomography
- Generalized equivalent uniform dose
- Lung cancer
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
- Physics and Astronomy(all)