Evaluation of Deformable Image Registration-Based Contour Propagation From Planning CT to Cone-Beam CT

Abstract

Purpose:We evaluated the performance of organ contour propagation from a planning computed tomography to cone-beam computed tomography with deformable image registration by comparing contours to manual contouring.Materials and Methods:Sixteen patients were retrospectively identified based on showing considerable physical change throughout the course of treatment. Multiple organs in the 3 regions (head and neck, prostate, and pancreas) were evaluated. A cone-beam computed tomography from the end of treatment was registered to the planning computed tomography using rigid registration, followed by deformable image registration. The contours were copied on cone-beam computed tomography image sets using rigid registration and modified by 2 radiation oncologists. Contours were compared using Dice similarity coefficient, mean surface distance, and Hausdorff distance.Results:The mean physician-to-physician Dice similarity coefficient for all organs was 0.90. When compared to each physician’s contours, the overall mean for rigid was 0.76 (P < .001), and it was improved to 0.79 (P < .001) for deformable image registration. Comparing deformable image registration to physicians resulted in a mean Dice similarity coefficient of 0.77, 0.74, and 0.84 for head and neck, prostate, and pancreas groups, respectively; whereas, the physician-to-physician mean agreement for these sites was 0.87, 0.90, and 0.93 (P < .001, for all sites). The mean surface distance for physician-to-physician contours was 1.01 mm, compared to 2.58 mm for rigid-to-physician contours and 2.24 mm for deformable image registration-to-physician contours. The mean physician-to-physician Hausdorff distance was 11.32 mm, and when compared to any physician’s contours, the mean for rigid and deformable image registration was 12.1 mm and 12.0 mm (P < .001), respectively.Conclusion:The physicians had a high level of agreement via the 3 metrics; however, deformable image registration fell short of this level of agreement. The automatic workflows using deformable image registration to deform contours to cone-beam computed tomography to evaluate the changes during treatment should be used with caution.

Evaluation of a cycle-generative adversarial network-based cone-beam CT to synthetic CT conversion algorithm for adaptive radiation therapy

“…The DSC of 94.9% of the lung was comparable to DSC results of 95.5%-97.5% of a study evaluating DIR contours on 4D CT [41] but the DSC of the spinal cord stayed below the related results of 89-91%. The analysis of the pelvis segmentation model provided the most robust results, being in line with findings of other recent studies that evaluated DL or DIR approaches [42][43][44] and the well-known interobserver variability for prostate and seminal vesicles [45]. More than any other body region, the pelvic region is subject to daily varying organ filling and the potential presence of bowel gas degrades the results of DIR segmentation algorithms [46].…”

Cross-Domain Data Augmentation for Deep-Learning-Based Male Pelvic Organ Segmentation in Cone Beam CT

“…Zambrano et al [11] and Thor et al [12] implemented a featurelet-based algorithm [13] and the demons DIR algorithm [14], respectively. As a result, more complex DIR approaches, such as a B-spline DIR algorithm relying on mutual information, have been proposed [15]. This last approach implements a six-pass DIR with progressively finer resolution and, after visual inspection, an optional final pass using a narrow region around the region of interest.…”

Robust contour propagation using deep learning and image registration for online adaptive proton therapy of prostate cancer

“…Moreover, the system was not qualitatively evaluated in terms of dosimetric coverage. Recently, Woerner et al . investigated the error between different radiologists and both DIR and rigid registration in different body regions.…”