Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25563260›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2015

Validation of a deformable image registration technique for cone beam CT-based dose verification.

M Moteabbed, G C Sharp, Y Wang, A Trofimov, J A Efstathiou, H-M Lu

Open access · hybridAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Adaptive proton therapy.Physics in medicine and biology · 2021
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. A clinical 3D/4D CBCT-based treatment dose monitoring system.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2018
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

M MoteabbedMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts 02114 and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115.
G C SharpMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts 02114 and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115.
Y WangMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts 02114 and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115.
A TrofimovMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts 02114 and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115.
J A EfstathiouMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts 02114 and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115.
H-M LuMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts 02114 and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115.
Harvard University · USMassachusetts General Hospital · US

Funding

PROTON THERAPY RESEARCH AND TREATMENT CENTERC06CA059267 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI GOITEIN, MICHAEL · 1992 to 1995
–
NCI NIH HHS C06 CA059267
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAs radiation therapy evolves toward more adaptive techniques, image guidance plays an increasingly important role, not only in patient setup but also in monitoring the delivered dose and adapting the treatment to patient changes. This study aimed to validate a method for evaluation of delivered intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) dose based on multimodal deformable image registration (dir) for prostate treatments.

methodsA pelvic phantom was scanned with CT and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Both images were digitally deformed using two realistic patient-based deformation fields. The original CT was then registered to the deformed CBCT resulting in a secondary deformed CT. The registration quality was assessed as the ability of the dir method to recover the artificially induced deformations. The primary and secondary deformed CT images as well as vector fields were compared to evaluate the efficacy of the registration method and it's suitability to be used for dose calculation. plastimatch, a free and open source software was used for deformable image registration. A B-spline algorithm with optimized parameters was used to achieve the best registration quality. Geometric image evaluation was performed through voxel-based Hounsfield unit (HU) and vector field comparison. For dosimetric evaluation, IMRT treatment plans were created and optimized on the original CT image and recomputed on the two warped images to be compared. The dose volume histograms were compared for the warped structures that were identical in both warped images. This procedure was repeated for the phantom with full, half full, and empty bladder.

resultsThe results indicated mean HU differences of up to 120 between registered and ground-truth deformed CT images. However, when the CBCT intensities were calibrated using a region of interest (ROI)-based calibration curve, these differences were reduced by up to 60%. Similarly, the mean differences in average vector field lengths decreased from 10.1 to 2.5 mm when CBCT was calibrated prior to registration. The results showed no dependence on the level of bladder filling. In comparison with the dose calculated on the primary deformed CT, differences in mean dose averaged over all organs were 0.2% and 3.9% for dose calculated on the secondary deformed CT with and without CBCT calibration, respectively, and 0.5% for dose calculated directly on the calibrated CBCT, for the full-bladder scenario. Gamma analysis for the distance to agreement of 2 mm and 2% of prescribed dose indicated a pass rate of 100% for both cases involving calibrated CBCT and on average 86% without CBCT calibration.

conclusionsUsing deformable registration on the planning CT images to evaluate the IMRT dose based on daily CBCTs was found feasible. The proposed method will provide an accurate dose distribution using planning CT and pretreatment CBCT data, avoiding the additional uncertainties introduced by CBCT inhomogeneity and artifacts. This is a necessary initial step toward future image-guided adaptive radiotherapy of the prostate.

Indexed as

Cone-Beam Computed TomographyRadiation DosageCalibrationHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMalePhantoms, ImagingProstatic NeoplasmsRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Image-GuidedRadiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated

Identifiers

PMID25563260
PMCPMC4277556
OpenAlexW2046340492

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.