Advances in 4D Medical Imaging and 4D Radiation Therapy

PurposeTo present and evaluate a straightforward implementation of a marker‐less, respiratory motion‐tracking process utilizing Kinect v2 camera as a gating tool during 4DCT or during radiotherapy treatments.MethodsUtilizing the depth sensor on the Kinect as well as author written C# code, respiratory motion of a subject was tracked by recording depth values obtained at user selected points on the subject, with each point representing one pixel on the depth image. As a patient breathes, specific anatomical points on the chest/abdomen will move slightly within the depth image across pixels. By tracking how depth values change for a specific pixel, instead of how the anatomical point moves throughout the image, a respiratory trace can be obtained based on changing depth values of the selected pixel. Tracking these values was implemented via marker‐less setup. Varian's RPM system and the Anzai belt system were used in tandem with the Kinect to compare respiratory traces obtained by each using two different subjects.ResultsAnalysis of the depth information from the Kinect for purposes of phase‐ and amplitude‐based binning correlated well with the RPM and Anzai systems. Interquartile Range (IQR) values were obtained comparing times correlated with specific amplitude and phase percentages against each product. The IQR time spans indicated the Kinect would measure specific percentage values within 0.077 s for Subject 1 and 0.164 s for Subject 2 when compared to values obtained with RPM or Anzai. For 4DCT scans, these times correlate to less than 1 mm of couch movement and would create an offset of 1/2 an acquired slice.ConclusionBy tracking depth values of user selected pixels within the depth image, rather than tracking specific anatomical locations, respiratory motion can be tracked and visualized utilizing the Kinect with results comparable to that of the Varian RPM and Anzai belt.

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative analysis of respiratory motion tracking using Microsoft Kinect v2 sensor

Silverstein

Snyder

2018

“…The use of 4D CT scanning is not only able to determine the intrafractional tumor motion, 6 , 8 but also to eliminate respiration motion artifacts 9 , 11 . Moreover, the size of PTVs of lung cancers can be reduced using the technique of 4D CT compared with the technique of 3D CT 5 , 12 , 13 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of the advantage of individual PTVs defined on axial 3D CT and 4D CT images for liver cancer

Xing

et al. 2012

The purpose of this study was to compare positional and volumetric differences of planning target volumes (PTVs) defined on axial three dimensional CT (3D CT) and four dimensional CT (4D CT) for liver cancer. Fourteen patients with liver cancer underwent 3D CT and 4D CT simulation scans during free breathing. The tumor motion was measured by 4D CT. Three internal target volumes (ITVs) were produced based on the clinical target volume from 3DCT (CTV3D): i) A conventional ITV (ITVconv) was produced by adding 10 mm in CC direction and 5 mm in LR and and AP directions to CTV3D; ii) A specific ITV (ITVspec) was created using a specific margin in transaxial direction; iii) ITVvector was produced by adding an isotropic margin derived from the individual tumor motion vector. ITV4D was defined on the fusion of CTVs on all phases of 4D CT. PTVs were generated by adding a 5 mm setup margin to ITVs. The average centroid shifts between PTVs derived from 3DCT and PTV4D in left–right (LR), anterior–posterior (AP), and cranial–caudal (CC) directions were close to zero. Comparing PTV4D to PTVconv, PTVspec, and PTVvector resulted in a decrease in volume size by 33.18% ±12.39%, 24.95% ±13.01%, 48.08% ±15.32%, respectively. The mean degree of inclusions (DI) of PTV4D in PTVconv, and PTV4D in PTVspec, and PTV4D in PTVvector was 0.98, 0.97, and 0.99, which showed no significant correlation to tumor motion vector (r=‐0.470, 0.259, and 0.244; p=0.090, 0.371, and 0.401). The mean DIs of PTVconv in PTV4D, PTVspec in PTV4D, and PTVvector in PTV4D was 0.66, 0.73, and 0.52. The size of individual PTV from 4D CT is significantly less than that of PTVs from 3DCT. The position of targets derived from axial 3DCT images scatters around the center of 4D targets randomly. Compared to conventional PTV, the use of 3D CT‐based PTVs with individual margins cannot significantly reduce normal tissues being unnecessarily irradiated, but may contribute to reducing the risk of missing targets for tumors with large motion.PACS number: 87

“…Respiration‐induced tumor motion is a major source of uncertainties in radiotherapy of thoracic and abdominal cancer 1, 2, 3. The motion of the nearby organ at risk (OAR) relative to the tumor plays an important role in radiation toxicity, which may become a limiting factor to prescribing an effective ablative dose for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) 4, 5.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of automatic contour propagation in T2‐weighted 4DMRI for normal‐tissue motion assessment using internal organ‐at‐risk volume (IRV)

Zhang

Markova

García

et al. 2018

Self Cite

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of automatically propagated contours of organs at risk (OARs) based on respiratory‐correlated navigator‐triggered four‐dimensional magnetic resonance imaging (RC‐4DMRI) for calculation of internal organ‐at‐risk volume (IRV) to account for intra‐fractional OAR motion.Methods and MaterialsT2‐weighted RC‐4DMRI images were of 10 volunteers acquired and reconstructed using an internal navigator‐echo surrogate and concurrent external bellows under an IRB‐approved protocol. Four major OARs (lungs, heart, liver, and stomach) were delineated in the 10‐phase 4DMRI. Two manual‐contour sets were delineated by two clinical personnel and two automatic‐contour sets were propagated using free‐form deformable image registration. The OAR volume variation within the 10‐phase cycle was assessed and the IRV was calculated as the union of all OAR contours. The OAR contour similarity between the navigator‐triggered and bellows‐rebinned 4DMRI was compared. A total of 2400 contours were compared to the most probable ground truth with a 95% confidence level (S95) in similarity, sensitivity, and specificity using the simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE) algorithm.ResultsVisual inspection of automatically propagated contours finds that approximately 5–10% require manual correction. The similarity, sensitivity, and specificity between manual and automatic contours are indistinguishable (P > 0.05). The Jaccard similarity indexes are 0.92 ± 0.02 (lungs), 0.89 ± 0.03 (heart), 0.92 ± 0.02 (liver), and 0.83 ± 0.04 (stomach). Volume variations within the breathing cycle are small for the heart (2.6 ± 1.5%), liver (1.2 ± 0.6%), and stomach (2.6 ± 0.8%), whereas the IRV is much larger than the OAR volume by: 20.3 ± 8.6% (heart), 24.0 ± 8.6% (liver), and 47.6 ± 20.2% (stomach). The Jaccard index is higher in navigator‐triggered than bellows‐rebinned 4DMRI by 4% (P < 0.05), due to the higher image quality of navigator‐based 4DMRI.ConclusionAutomatic and manual OAR contours from Navigator‐triggered 4DMRI are not statistically distinguishable. The navigator‐triggered 4DMRI image provides higher contour quality than bellows‐rebinned 4DMRI. The IRVs are 20–50% larger than OAR volumes and should be considered in dose estimation.