Open Access

Evaluation of deformable image registration (DIR) methods for dose accumulation in nasopharyngeal cancer patients during radiotherapy

Wannapha Nobnop
Wannapha Nobnop
, 
Imjai Chitapanarux
Imjai Chitapanarux
, 
Hudsaleark Neamin
Hudsaleark Neamin
, 
Somsak Wanwilairat
Somsak Wanwilairat
, 
Vicharn Lorvidhaya
Vicharn Lorvidhaya
 and 
Taweap Sanghangthum
Taweap Sanghangthum
   | Sep 15, 2017
Radiology and Oncology's Cover Image
About this article
Previous Article
Next Article
Cite
Article Category: Research Article
Published Online: Sep 15, 2017
Page range: 438 - 446
Received: Jun 03, 2017
Accepted: Jul 16, 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/raon-2017-0033
© 2017 Wannapha Nobnop, Imjai Chitapanarux, Hudsaleark Neamin, Somsak Wanwilairat, Vicharn Lorvidhaya, Taweap Sanghangthum
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Figure 1

The diagram of the study workflow for dose accumulation and dose comparison.
The diagram of the study workflow for dose accumulation and dose comparison.

Figure 2

The percent ratio to the volume at the initial treatment planning of (A) gross target volume GTV, (B) clinical target volume CTV, (C) right parotid gland, and (D) left parotid gland.
The percent ratio to the volume at the initial treatment planning of (A) gross target volume GTV, (B) clinical target volume CTV, (C) right parotid gland, and (D) left parotid gland.

Figure 3

Histogram of (A) the dice similarity coefficients (DSC) for all of the targets and organs at risk and (B) the inverse consistency error (ICE) in each treatment week and by asymmetric Horn and Schunck (AsyHS), asymmetric demon (AsyDM), symmetric Horn and Schunck (SymHS), and symmetric demon (SymDM) deformable image registration (DIR) methods.
Histogram of (A) the dice similarity coefficients (DSC) for all of the targets and organs at risk and (B) the inverse consistency error (ICE) in each treatment week and by asymmetric Horn and Schunck (AsyHS), asymmetric demon (AsyDM), symmetric Horn and Schunck (SymHS), and symmetric demon (SymDM) deformable image registration (DIR) methods.

Figure 4

The 1st day MVCT image showing the original bilateral parotid gland (A) and the MVCT image at the 31st fraction showing the automatic deformed contour (B) from the AsyDM method. The initial planned dose distribution on the 1st day MVCT image (C) which was used to compare with the accumulated dose distribution at the end of the treatment (D).
The 1st day MVCT image showing the original bilateral parotid gland (A) and the MVCT image at the 31st fraction showing the automatic deformed contour (B) from the AsyDM method. The initial planned dose distribution on the 1st day MVCT image (C) which was used to compare with the accumulated dose distribution at the end of the treatment (D).

Figure 5

Cumulative dose comparison, calculated by the asymmetric Horn and Schunck (AsyHS), asymmetric demon (AsyDM), symmetric Horn and Schunck (SymHS), and symmetric demon (SymDM) deformable registration methods of gross tumour volume (GTV) for (A) median dose, D50(B) near-minimum dose, D98 and (C) near-maximum dose, D2 and clinical tumour volume (CTV) for (D) median dose, D50(E) near-minimum dose, D98, and (F) near-maximum dose, D2. The reference (Ref) accumulated dose was computed by summing the weekly doses corresponding to the weekly MVCTs defined by the radiation oncologist.
Cumulative dose comparison, calculated by the asymmetric Horn and Schunck (AsyHS), asymmetric demon (AsyDM), symmetric Horn and Schunck (SymHS), and symmetric demon (SymDM) deformable registration methods of gross tumour volume (GTV) for (A) median dose, D50(B) near-minimum dose, D98 and (C) near-maximum dose, D2 and clinical tumour volume (CTV) for (D) median dose, D50(E) near-minimum dose, D98, and (F) near-maximum dose, D2. The reference (Ref) accumulated dose was computed by summing the weekly doses corresponding to the weekly MVCTs defined by the radiation oncologist.

Figure 6

Cumulative dose comparison, calculated from the asymmetric Horn and Schunck (AsyHS), asymmetric demon (AsyDM), symmetric Horn and Schunck (SymHS), and symmetric demon (SymDM) deformable registration methods in mean dose, Dmean, of (A) right parotid gland and (B) left parotid gland, and near-maximum dose, D2, of (C) spinal cord.
Cumulative dose comparison, calculated from the asymmetric Horn and Schunck (AsyHS), asymmetric demon (AsyDM), symmetric Horn and Schunck (SymHS), and symmetric demon (SymDM) deformable registration methods in mean dose, Dmean, of (A) right parotid gland and (B) left parotid gland, and near-maximum dose, D2, of (C) spinal cord.

Figure 7

Cumulative dose comparison, derived from helical tomotherapy planned adaptive software (HT) and DIRART software in median dose, D50, of (A) right parotid gland and (B) left parotid gland.
Cumulative dose comparison, derived from helical tomotherapy planned adaptive software (HT) and DIRART software in median dose, D50, of (A) right parotid gland and (B) left parotid gland.
eISSN:
1581-3207
Language:
English
Publication timeframe:
4 times per year
Journal Subjects:
Medicine, Clinical Medicine, Internal Medicine, Haematology, Oncology, Radiology
Journal RSS Feed