Validating Dose Uncertainty Estimates Produced by AUTODIRECT: An Automated Program to Evaluate Deformable Image Registration Accuracy. (December 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kim, Hojin; Chen, Josephine; Phillips, Justin; Pukala, Jason; Yom, Sue S.; Kirby, Neil
• Is Part Of: Technology in cancer research & treatment. Volume 16:Number 6(2017:Dec.)
• Page Start: 885
• Page End: 892
• Publication Date: 2017-12
• Subjects: deformable image registration -- AUTODIRECT -- DIR uncertainty -- dose mapping error -- Student t distribution; Oncology -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Diagnosis -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Treatment -- Technological innovations -- Periodicals; 616.994
• DOI: 10.1177/1533034617708076
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1533-0346

Abstract

Deformable image registration is a powerful tool for mapping information, such as radiation therapy dose calculations, from one computed tomography image to another. However, deformable image registration is susceptible to mapping errors. Recently, an automated deformable image registration evaluation of confidence tool was proposed to predict voxel-specific deformable image registration dose mapping errors on a patient-by-patient basis. The purpose of this work is to conduct an extensive analysis of automated deformable image registration evaluation of confidence tool to show its effectiveness in estimating dose mapping errors. The proposed format of automated deformable image registration evaluation of confidence tool utilizes 4 simulated patient deformations (3 B-spline-based deformations and 1 rigid transformation) to predict the uncertainty in a deformable image registration algorithm's performance. This workflow is validated for 2 DIR algorithms (B-spline multipass from Velocity and Plastimatch) with 1 physical and 11 virtual phantoms, which have known ground-truth deformations, and with 3 pairs of real patient lung images, which have several hundred identified landmarks. The true dose mapping error distributions closely followed the Student t distributions predicted by automated deformable image registration evaluation of confidence tool for the validation tests: on average, the automated deformable image registration evaluation of confidence tool–produced confidence levels of 50%, 68%, and 95% contained 48.8%, 66.3%, and 93.8% and 50.1%, 67.6%, and 93.8% of the actual errors from Velocity and Plastimatch, respectively. Despite the sparsity of landmark points, the observed error distribution from the 3 lung patient data sets also followed the expected error distribution. The dose error distributions from automated deformable image registration evaluation of confidence tool also demonstrate good resemblance to the true dose error distributions. Automated deformable image registration evaluation of confidence tool was also found to produce accurate confidence intervals for the dose–volume histograms of the deformed dose.