Assessment of a commercially available automatic deformable registration system

Abstract

In recent years, a number of approaches have been applied to the problem of deformable registration validation. However, the challenge of assessing a commercial deformable registration system – in particular, an automatic registration system in which the deformable transformation is not readily accessible – has not been addressed. Using a collection of novel and established methods, we have developed a comprehensive, four‐component protocol for the validation of automatic deformable image registration systems over a range of IGRT applications. The protocol, which was applied to the Reveal‐MVS system, initially consists of a phantom study for determination of the system's general tendencies, while relative comparison of different registration settings is achieved through postregistration similarity measure evaluation. Synthetic transformations and contour‐based metrics are used for absolute verification of the system's intra‐modality and inter‐modality capabilities, respectively. Results suggest that the commercial system is more apt to account for global deformations than local variations when performing deformable image registration. Although the protocol was used to assess the capabilities of the Reveal‐MVS system, it can readily be applied to other commercial systems. The protocol is by no means static or definitive, and can be further expanded to investigate other potential deformable registration applications.PACS numbers: 87.19.xj, 87.56.Da, 87.57.nj

Commissioning of a new wide-bore MRI scanner for radiotherapy planning of head and neck cancer

“…A potential solution to extend the coverage would be to use the HNS coil and then apply a robust, non-rigid body registration algorithm capable of local deformations [19], and this is the subject of ongoing work. However, in future, it is expected that vendors will bring to market more dedicated RF coils that will allow the acquisition of treatment position images across a number of sites.…”

Validation of deformable image registration algorithms on CT images ofex vivoporcine bladders with fiducial markers

“…Kirby et al 24 found that a higher value of the smoothness parameter improved the overall spatial accuracy, but this came with a diminishing ability to transfer contours. Fallone et al 26 found that commercial systems are more apt to account for global deformations than local variations.…”

“…Large differences in accuracy between algorithms were found, also depending on the image region. [24][25][26][27][28][29][30] Two important techniques for evaluating the spatial accuracy of DIR involve landmark tracking 28,29,31 and contour or structure comparison. 20,21,32 Structure correspondence is quantified with metrics such as average surface distance error (SDE), Hausdorff distance (HD), and Dice similarity coefficient (DSC).…”

The Role of Regularization in Deformable Image Registration for Head and Neck Adaptive Radiotherapy

“…A crucial issue is the preservation of topology in the computation of the deformation field, to maintain neighborhood relationships and integrity of anatomical structures (19). Assessing the clinical validity of DIR is a complex task (19,20) and appropriate validation study at each anatomical site are needed (3). Comparative studies have been performed, relying on either deformable phantoms or common datasets with verification landmarks or structures segmented by experts (10)(11)(12)(13).…”