Use of a DVH overlay technique for quality assurance of deformable image registration‐based dose accumulation. Issue 1 (10th December 2021) - Kainz, Kristofer
Abstract: Purpose: We present a DVH overlay technique as a quality assurance (QA) metric for deformable image registration‐based dose accumulation (DIR‐DA). We use the technique to estimate the uncertainty in a DIR‐DA for a revised treatment plan, and to compare two different DIR algorithms. Materials and methods: The required inputs to the DVH overlay workflow are deformably registered primary and secondary images, primary regions‐of‐interest (ROIs), and secondary dose distribution. The primary ROIs were forward warped to the secondary image, the secondary dose was inversely warped to the primary image, and the DVHs for each image were compiled. Congruent DVHs imply minimal inverse consistency error (ICE) within an ROI. For a pancreas case re‐planned after 21 fractions of a 29‐fraction course, the workflow was used to quantify dose accumulation error attributable to ICE, based on a hybrid contour‐and‐intensity‐based DIR. The usefulness of the workflow was further demonstrated by assessing the performance of two DIR algorithms (one free‐form intensity‐based, FFIB, the other using normalized correlation coefficients, NCC, over small neighborhood patches) as applied toward kilovoltage computed tomography (kVCT)‐to‐megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) registration and five‐fraction dose accumulation of ten male pelvis cases. Results: For the re‐planned pancreas case, when applying the DVH‐overlay‐based uncertainties the resulting accumulated dose remained compliant with all but two of the original plan objectives. Among the male pelvis cases, FFIB and NCC DIR showed good invertibility within the planning target volume (PTV), according to the DVH overlay QA results. NCC DIR exhibited better invertibility for the bladder and rectum compared with FFIB. However, compared with FFIB, NCC DIR exhibited less regional deformation for the bladder and a tendency for increased local contraction of the rectum ROI. For the five‐fraction summations, ICE for the PTV V 100%Rx is comparable for both algorithms (FFIB 0.8 ± 0.7%, NCC 0.7 ± 0.3%). For the bladder and rectum V 70%Rx, ICE is greater for FFIB (1.8 ± 0.7% for bladder, 1.7 ± 0.6% for rectum) than for NCC (1.0 ± 0.3% for bladder, 1.0 ± 0.4% for rectum). Conclusions: The DVH overlay technique identified instances in which a DIR exhibits favorable invertibility, implying low ICE in a DIR‐based dose accumulation. Differences in the overlaid DVHs can also estimate dose accumulation errors attributable to ICE for given ROIs.