Deformable versus rigid registration of PET/CT images for radiation treatment planning of head and neck and lung cancer patients: a retrospective dosimetric comparison

Radiation Oncology

Elaine S Wai³  David Peterson³  Tanya Berrang³  Parminder S Basran²  Dominique Fortin¹ 

[1] Department of Medical Physics, BC Cancer Agency–Vancouver Island Centre, 2410 Lee Avenue, V8R 6V5 Victoria, British Columbia, Canada;Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada;Department of Surgery, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

关键词: Planning;    Treatment;    PET/CT;    Registration;    Deformable;   

Others  :  814743
DOI  :  10.1186/1748-717X-9-50

 received in 2013-08-22, accepted in 2014-01-24,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical impact of using deformable registration in tumor volume definition between separately acquired PET/CT and planning CT images.

Methods

Ten lung and 10 head and neck cancer patients were retrospectively selected. PET/CT images were registered with planning CT scans using commercially available software. Radiation oncologists defined two sets of gross tumor volumes based on either rigidly or deformably registered PET/CT images, and properties of these volumes were then compared.

Results

The average displacement between rigid and deformable gross tumor volumes was 1.8 mm (0.7 mm) with a standard deviation of 1.0 mm (0.6 mm) for the head and neck (lung) cancer subjects. The Dice similarity coefficients ranged from 0.76-0.92 and 0.76-0.97 for the head and neck and lung subjects, respectively, indicating conformity. All gross tumor volumes received at least 95% of the prescribed dose to 99% of their volume. Differences in the mean radiation dose delivered to the gross tumor volumes were at most 2%. Differences in the fraction of the tumor volumes receiving 100% of the radiation dose were at most 5%.

Conclusions

The study revealed limitations in the commercial software used to perform deformable registration. Unless significant anatomical differences between PET/CT and planning CT images are present, deformable registration was shown to be of marginal value when delineating gross tumor volumes.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Fortin et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Visioni A, Kim J: Positron emission tomography for benign and malignant disease. Surg Clin North Am 2011, 91:249-266.
• [2]Price PM, Green MM: Positron emission tomography imaging approaches for external beam radiation therapies: current status and future developments. Br J Radiol 2011, 84 Spec No 1:S19-S34.
• [3]Cuaron J, Dunphy M, Rimner A: Role of FDG-PET scans in staging, response assessment, and follow-up care for non-small cell lung cancer. Front Oncol 2012, 2:208.
• [4]Newbold K, Powell C: PET/CT in radiotherapy planning for head and neck cancer. Front Oncol 2012, 2:189.
• [5]International Atomic Energy Agency: Role of PET in radiation therapy planning for specific tumor types. In The Role of PET/CT in radiation treatment planning for cancer patient treatment: IAEA-TECDOC-1603. Vienna: IAEA; 2008:7-21.
• [6]Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA: From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med 2009, 50(Suppl 1):122S-150S.
• [7]Hwang AB, Bacharach SL, Yom SS, Weinberg VK, Quivey JM, Franc BL, Xia P: Can positron emission tomography (PET) or PET/Computed Tomography (CT) acquired in a nontreatment position be accurately registered to a head-and-neck radiotherapy planning CT? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 73:578-584.
• [8]Caldwell CB, Mah K, Basran PS: Evaluation of a combined positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) scanner for radiation therapy simulation. Radiother Oncol 2004, 72:S60-S60.
• [9]Brock KK: Image registration in intensity-modulated, image-guided and stereotactic body radiation therapy. Front Radiat Ther Oncol 2007, 40:94-115.
• [10]Schwartz DL, Garden AS, Shah SJ, Chronowski G, Sejpal S, Rosenthal DI, Chen Y, Zhang Y, Zhang L, Wong P-F, Garcia JA, Kian Ang K, Dong L: Adaptive radiotherapy for head and neck cancer–dosimetric results from a prospective clinical trial. Radiother Oncol 2013, 106:80-84.
• [11]Castadot P, Lee JA, Parraga A, Geets X, Macq B, Grégoire V: Comparison of 12 deformable registration strategies in adaptive radiation therapy for the treatment of head and neck tumors. Radiother Oncol 2008, 89:1-12.
• [12]Fallone BG, Rivest DRC, Riauka TA, Murtha AD: Assessment of a commercially available automatic deformable registration system. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2010, 11:3175.
• [13]Zhong H, Kim J, Chetty IJ: Analysis of deformable image registration accuracy using computational modeling. Med Phys 2010, 37:970-979.
• [14]Senthi S, Griffioen GHMJ, van Sörnsen de Koste J, Slotman BJ, Senan S: Comparing rigid and deformable dose registration for high dose thoracic re-irradiation. Radiother Oncol 2013, 106:323-326.
• [15]Ireland RH, Dyker KE, Barber DC, Wood SM, Hanney MB, Tindale WB, Woodhouse N, Hoggard N, Conway J, Robinson MH: Nonrigid image registration for head and neck cancer radiotherapy treatment planning with PET/CT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007, 68:952-957.
• [16]Yin LS, Tang L, Hamarneh G, Gill B, Celler A, Shcherbinin S, Fua TF, Thompson A, Liu M, Duzenli C, Sheehan F, Moiseenko V: Complexity and accuracy of image registration methods in SPECT-guided radiation therapy. Phys Med Biol 2010, 55:237-246.
• [17]Basran PS, Capaldi D: On Quantitative assessment of deformable CT-CT registration. Proceedings of the Joint Scientific Meeting of CARO-COMP 2013 2013, 8.
• [18]Hatt M, Cheze-Le Rest C, Aboagye EO, Kenny LM, Rosso L, Turkheimer FE, Albarghach NM, Metges J-P, Pradier O, Visvikis D: Reproducibility of 18F-FDG and 3’-deoxy-3’-18F-fluorothymidine PET tumor volume measurements. J Nucl Med 2010, 51:1368-1376.