Structure guided deformable image registration for treatment planning CT and post stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) Primovist® (Gd‐EOB‐DTPA) enhanced MRI. Issue 12 (22nd November 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kuznetsova, Svetlana; Grendarova, Petra; Roy, Soumyajit; Sinha, Rishi; Thind, Kundan; Ploquin, Nicolas
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 20:Issue 12(2019)
• Page Start: 109
• Page End: 118
• Publication Date: 2019-11-22
• Subjects: deformable image registration -- liver -- Primovist® -- stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) -- Velocity AI; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12773
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to assess the performance of structure‐guided deformable image registration (SG‐DIR) relative to rigid registration and DIR using TG‐132 recommendations. This assessment was performed for image registration of treatment planning computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans with Primovist ® contrast agent acquired post stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). SBRT treatment planning CT scans and posttreatment Primovist ® MRI scans were obtained for 14 patients. The liver was delineated on both sets of images and matching anatomical landmarks were chosen by a radiation oncologist. Rigid registration, DIR, and two types of SG‐DIR (using liver contours only; and using liver structures along with anatomical landmarks) were performed for each set of scans. TG‐132 recommended metrics were estimated which included Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), Mean Distance to Agreement (MDA), Target Registration Error (TRE), and Jacobian determinant. Statistical analysis was performed using Wilcoxon Signed Rank test. The median (range) DSC for rigid registration was 0.88 (0.77–0.89), 0.89 (0.81–0.93) for DIR, and 0.90 (0.86–0.94) for both types of SG‐DIR tested in this study. The median MDA was 4.8 mm (3.7–6.8 mm) for rigid registration, 3.4 mm (2.4–8.7 mm) for DIR, 3.2 mm (2.0–5.2 mm) for SG‐DIR where liver structures were used to guide the registration, and 2.8 mm (2.1–4.2 mm) for the SG‐DIR where liver structures and anatomical landmarks were used to guide the registration. The median TRE for rigid registration was 7.2 mm (0.5–23 mm), 6.8 mm (0.7–30.7 mm) for DIR, 6.1 mm (1.1–20.5 mm) for the SG‐DIR guided by only the liver structures, and 4.1 mm (0.8–19.7 mm) for SG‐DIR guided by liver contours and anatomical landmarks. The SG‐DIR shows higher liver conformality as per TG‐132 metrics and lowest TRE compared to rigid registration and DIR in Velocity AI software for the purpose of registering treatment planning CT and post‐SBRT MRI for the liver region. It was found that TRE decreases when liver contours and corresponding anatomical landmarks guide SG‐DIR.