Dosimetric and geometric evaluation of the use of deformable image registration in adaptive intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer

• Published in: Journal of radiation research Vol. 55; no. 5; pp. 1002 - 1008
• Main Authors: Eiland, R.B., Maare, C., Sjöström, D., Samsøe, E., Behrens, C.F.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Oxford University Press 01.09.2014
• Subjects: Adaptive algorithms; Algorithms; Analysis; Cancer; Deformation; Formability; Ground truth; Head and Neck Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging; Head and Neck Neoplasms - radiotherapy; Humans; Image registration; Medical imaging; Oncology; Patient Positioning - methods; Radiation therapy; Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods; Radiotherapy; Radiotherapy Dosage; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods; Radiotherapy, Conformal - methods; Radiotherapy, Image-Guided - methods; Reproducibility of Results; Retrospective Studies; Sensitivity and Specificity; Similarity; Software; Spinal cord; Subtraction Technique; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods; deformable image registration; head and neck; adaptive radiotherapy
• ISSN: 0449-3060; 1349-9157; 1349-9157
• DOI: 10.1093/jrr/rru044

The aim of this study was to carry out geometric and dosimetric evaluation of the usefulness of a deformable image registration algorithm utilized for adaptive head-and-neck intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Data consisted of seven patients, each with a planning CT (pCT), a rescanning CT (ReCT) and a cone beam CT (CBCT). The CBCT was acquired on the same day (±1 d) as the ReCT (i.e. at Fraction 17, 18, 23, 24 or 29). The ReCT served as ground truth. A deformed CT (dCT) with structures was created by deforming the pCT to the CBCT. The geometrical comparison was based on the volumes of the deformed, and the manually delineated structures on the ReCT. Likewise, the center of mass shift (CMS) and the Dice similarity coefficient were determined. The dosimetric comparison was performed by recalculating the initial treatment plan on the dCT and the ReCT. Dose–volume histogram (DVH) points and a range of conformity measures were used for the evaluation. We found a significant difference in the median volume of the dCT relative to that of the ReCT. Median CMS values were ∼2–5 mm, except for the spinal cord, where the median CMS was 8 mm. Dosimetric evaluation of target structures revealed small differences, while larger differences were observed for organs at risk. The deformed structures cannot fully replace manually delineated structures. Based on both geometrical and dosimetrical measures, there is a tendency for the dCT to overestimate the need for replanning, compared with the ReCT.