Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T03:36:17.728Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Correlation of displacement vector fields calculated by different deformable image registration algorithms with motion parameters in helical, axial and cone beam CT imaging

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2019

Nesreen Alsbou ,
Salahuddin Ahmad  and
Imad Ali Open the ORCID record for Imad Ali [Opens in a new window]
Nesreen Alsbou
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering and Physics, Howell Hall 221R, University of Central Oklahoma, Edmond, OK, USA
Salahuddin Ahmad
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA
Imad Ali*
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Imad Ali, Medical Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, Stephenson Oklahoma Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, 800 N.E. 10th Street, OKCC L100, Oklahoma City, OK 73104, USA. Tel: 405-271-8290. Fax: 405-271-8297. E-mail: iali@ouhsc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aim:

The purpose of this study is to investigate quantitatively the correlation of displacement vector fields (DVFs) from different deformable image registration (DIR) algorithms to register images from helical computed tomography (HCT), axial computed tomography (ACT) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) with motion parameters.

Materials and methods:

CT images obtained from scanning of the mobile phantom were registered with the stationary CT images using four DIR algorithms from the DIRART software: Demons, Fast-Demons, Horn–Schunck and Lucas–Kanade. HCT, ACT and CBCT imaging techniques were used to image a mobile phantom, which included three targets with different sizes (small, medium and large) that were manufactured from a water-equivalent material and embedded in low-density foam to simulate lung lesions. The phantom was moved with controlled cyclic motion patterns where a range of motion amplitudes (0–20 mm) and frequencies (0·125–0·5 Hz) were used.

Results:

The DVF obtained from different algorithms correlated well with motion amplitudes applied on the mobile phantom for CBCT and HCT, where the maximal DVF increased linearly with the motion amplitudes of the mobile phantom. In ACT, the DVF correlated less with motion amplitudes where motion-induced strong image artefacts and the DIR algorithms were not able to deform the ACT image of the mobile targets to the stationary targets. Three DIR algorithms produce comparable values and patterns of the DVF for certain CT imaging modality. However, DVF from Fast-Demons deviated strongly from other algorithms at large motion amplitudes.

Conclusions:

The local DVFs provide direct quantitative values for the actual internal tumour shifts that can be used to determine margins for the internal target volume that consider tumour motion during treatment planning. Furthermore, the DVF distributions can be used to extract motion parameters such as motion amplitude that can be extracted from the maximal or minimal DVF calculated by the different DIR algorithms and used in the management of the patient motion.

Keywords

CT imagesdeformable image registrationdisplacement vector fieldsmotion artefactsrespiratory motion
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , September 2020 , pp. 219 - 225
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Keall, P, Mageras, G S, Balter, J Met al.The management of respiratory motion in radiation oncology report of AAPM Task Group 76. Med Phys 2006; 33: 3874–3900.10.1118/1.2349696CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ali, I, Jackson, J, Alsbou, N, Ahmad, S. Theoretical modeling of mobile target broadening in helical and axial computed tomographic imaging J Xray Sci Technol 2014; 22: 351–360.Google ScholarPubMed
Bernatowicz, K, Keall, P, Mishra, P, Knopf, A, Lomax, A, Kipritidis, J. Quantifying the impact of respiratory-gated 4d ct acquisition on thoracic image quality: a digital phantom study. Med Phys 2015; 42: 324–334.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vedam, S S, Keall, P J, Kini, V R, Mostafavi, H, Shukla, H P, Mohan, R. Acquiring a four-dimensional computed tomography dataset using an external respiratory signal. Phys Med Biol 2003; 48: 45–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giraud, P, Morvan, E, Claude, Let al.Respiratory gating techniques for optimization of lung cancer radiotherapy. J Thorac Oncol 2011; 9 (6): 2058–2068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, I C, Loo, B W J. CyberKnife stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for lung tumors. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2010; 9: 589–596.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fast, M F, Kamerling, C P, Ziegenhein, P, Menten, M J, Bedford, J L, Nill, S, Oelfke, U. Assessment of MLC tracking performance during hypofractionated prostate radiotherapy using real-time dose reconstruction. Phys Med Biol 2016; 61: 1546–1562.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, D, Brame, S, El Naqa, I. Technical note: DIRART—a software suite for deformable image registration and adaptive radiotherapy research. Med Phys 2010; 38: 67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yan, D, Vicini, F, Wong, J, Martinez, A. Adaptive radiation therapy. Phys Med Biol 1997; 42: 123–132.10.1088/0031-9155/42/1/008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wu, Q J, Li, T, Wu, Q, Yin, F F. Adaptive radiation therapy: technical components and clinical applications. Cancer J 2011; 17: 182–189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thirion, J-P. Image matching as a diffusion process: an analogy with Maxwell’s demons. Med Image Anal 1998; 2: 243–260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, H, Dong, L, O’Daniel, Jet al.Validation of an accelerated ‘demons’ algorithm for deformable image registration in radiation therapy. Phys Med Biol 2005; 50: 2887–2905.10.1088/0031-9155/50/12/011CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pennec, X, Cachier, P, Ayache, N. Understanding the ‘demon’s algorithm’: 3d non-rigid registration by gradient descent. In: Taylor, C, Colchester, A (eds). Medical Image Computing and Computer-assisted Intervention—MICCAI’99: Second International Conference, Cambridge, UK, September 19–22, 1999, Proceedings. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1999: 597–605.Google Scholar
Yang, D, Li, H, Low, D, Deasy, J, El Naqa, I. A fast inverse consistent deformable image registration method based on symmetric optical flow computation. Phys Med Biol 2008; 53: 6143–6165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horn, B K P, Schunck, B G. Determining Optical Flow. Artificial Intelligence, Elsevier 1981; 17: 185–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meinhardt-Llopis, E, Perez, J, Kondermann, D. Horn–Schunck optical flow with a multi-scale strategy. Image Processing on Line 2013; 3: 151–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruhn, A, Weickert, J, Schnörr, C. Lucas/Kanade meets Horn/Schunck: combining local and global optic flow methods. International Journal of Computer Vision 2005; 61: 211–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, B, Kanade, T. An iterative image registration technique with an application to stereo vision. Proc. DARPA Image Understanding Workshop, 1981: 121–130.Google Scholar