2011
DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/56/3/015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: We developed an efficient technique to auto-propagate parotid gland contours from planning kVCT to daily MVCT images of head-and-neck cancer patients treated with helical tomotherapy. The method deformed a 3D surface mesh constructed from manual kVCT contours by B-spline free-form deformation to generate optimal and smooth contours. Deformation was calculated by elastic image registration between kVCT and MVCT images. Data from ten head-and-neck cancer patients were considered and manual contours by three obse… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
35
0
2

Year Published

2012
2012
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 54 publications
(39 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
2
35
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Earlier studies showed that the coefficients of variance for contouring OARs varied between 12% and 16% [76] resulting in dose differences of on average 3.5 Gy [77]. Automatic contouring on MVCBCT was found to be comparable to inter-observer uncertainty in delineating parotid glands on CT [78]. Morin et al [79] showed that dose calculation on MVCBCT could be performed within a 3% / 3 mm accuracy.…”
Section: Inaccuracies In the Calculation Of Dosimetric Changesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Earlier studies showed that the coefficients of variance for contouring OARs varied between 12% and 16% [76] resulting in dose differences of on average 3.5 Gy [77]. Automatic contouring on MVCBCT was found to be comparable to inter-observer uncertainty in delineating parotid glands on CT [78]. Morin et al [79] showed that dose calculation on MVCBCT could be performed within a 3% / 3 mm accuracy.…”
Section: Inaccuracies In the Calculation Of Dosimetric Changesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2). From these segmentations, differences in the anatomical structures before and after the registration process were calculated by using standard indices usually adopted for accuracy assessment: the area difference (ADiff), the dice similarity coefficient (DSC), the average symmetric distance (ASD) and the maximum symmetric distance (DMax) [20,[31][32][33].…”
Section: Registration Accuracymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The indices could be divided into two categories, 1) indices that give spatial and geometrical information of an individual mesh: coordinates of the baricenter, surface area and volume; and 2) indices that make a comparison between two meshes: Euclidean distance between baricenters, surface area difference, volume difference, dice similarity coefficient (DICE) [1], maximum distance between meshes (DMax) and average symmetric distance (ASD) [1]. DICE index is a metric of the overlap between 2 surfaces ranging from 0 (no spatial overlap) to 1 (complete overlap).…”
Section: A Analysis Of Structures Of Interest By Meshesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Due to these anatomical modifications the parotids can receive a total dose significantly higher than the planned one. In this context the importance of the analysis of the anatomical modifications occurring during RT treatments is to both identify potential predictors of toxicity and design optimized adaptive treatment plans [1]. To have a better perspective of the distortions that occur in structures of interest, different techniques to represent structures in 3D have been implemented [2,3].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%