ArticleMedical physics2020
Accuracy of deformable image registration techniques for alignment of longitudinal cholangiocarcinoma CT images.
Article in Medical physics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Segmentation regularized training for multi-domain deep learning registration applied to magnetic resonance-guided prostate cancer radiotherapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Can virtual non-contrast images replace true non-contrast images to calculate dose in children's craniospinal irradiation proton therapy plan?Translational pediatrics · 2026Article
- Measurable imaging-based changes in enhancement of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma after radiotherapy reflect physical mechanisms of response.NPJ systems biology and applications · 2025Article
- Evaluation of deformable image registration accuracy for liver re-irradiation patients using contrast and non-contrast computed tomography images.Medical physics · 2025Article
- A vessel bifurcation liver CT landmark pair dataset for evaluating deformable image registration algorithms.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Ablative margin quantification using deformable versus rigid image registration in colorectal liver metastasis thermal ablation: a retrospective single-center study.European radiology · 2024Article
- Review and recommendations on deformable image registration uncertainties for radiotherapy applications.Physics in medicine and biology · 2023Review
- Analysis and prediction of liver volume change maps derived from computational tomography scans acquired pre- and post-radiation therapy.Physics in medicine and biology · 2023Article
- Registration-based biomarkers for neoadjuvant treatment response of pancreatic cancer via longitudinal image registration.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2023Article
- Optimization of mesh generation for geometric accuracy, robustness, and efficiency of biomechanical-model-based deformable image registration.Medical physics · 2023Article
- Comparison of an in-house hybrid DIR method to NiftyReg on CBCT and CT images for head and neck cancer.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
- Detection of vessel bifurcations in CT scans for automatic objective assessment of deformable image registration accuracy.Medical physics · 2021Article
- Current trends in three-dimensional visualization and real-time navigation as well as robot-assisted technologies in hepatobiliary surgery.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2021Review
- Volumetric Quantitative Ablation Margins for Assessment of Ablation Completeness in Thermal Ablation of Liver Tumors.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeResponse assessment of radiotherapy for the treatment of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC) across longitudinal images is challenging due to anatomical changes. Advanced deformable image registration (DIR) techniques are required to correlate corresponding tissues across time. In this study, the accuracy of five commercially available DIR algorithms in four treatment planning systems (TPS) was investigated for the registration of planning images with posttreatment follow-up images for response assessment or re-treatment purposes.
methodsTwenty-nine IHCC patients treated with hypofractionated radiotherapy and with pretreatment and posttreatment contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) images were analyzed. Liver segmentations were semiautomatically generated on all CTs and the posttreatment CT was then registered to the pretreatment CT using five commercially available algorithms (Demons, B-splines, salient feature-based, anatomically constrained and finite element-based) in four TPSs. This was followed by an in-depth analysis of 10 DIR strategies (plus global and liver-focused rigid registration) in one of the TPSs. Eight of the strategies were variants of the anatomically constrained DIR while the two were based on a finite element-based biomechanical registration. The anatomically constrained techniques were combinations of: (a) initializations with the two rigid registrations; (b) two similarity metrics - correlation coefficient (CC) and mutual information (MI); and (c) with and without a controlling region of interest (ROI) - the liver. The finite element-based techniques were initialized by the two rigid registrations. The accuracy of each registration was evaluated using target registration error (TRE) based on identified vessel bifurcations. The results were statistically analyzed with a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and pairwise comparison tests. Stratified analysis was conducted on the inter-TPS data (plus the liver-focused rigid registration) using treatment volume changes, slice thickness, time between scans, and abnormal lab values as stratifying factors.
resultsThe complex deformation observed following treatment resulted in average TRE exceeding the image voxel size for all techniques. For the inter-TPS comparison, the Demons algorithm had the lowest TRE, which was significantly superior to all the other algorithms. The respective mean (standard deviation) TRE (in mm) for the Demons, B-splines, salient feature-based, anatomically constrained, and finite element-based algorithms were 4.6 (2.0), 7.4 (2.7), 7.2 (2.6), 6.3 (2.3), and 7.5 (4.0). In the follow-up comparison of the anatomically constrained DIR, the strategy with liver-focused rigid registration initialization, CC as similarity metric and liver as a controlling ROI had the lowest mean TRE - 6.0 (2.0). The maximum TRE for all techniques exceeded 10 mm. Selection of DIR strategy was found to be a statistically significant factor for registration accuracy. Tumor volume change had a significant effect on TRE for finite element-based registration and B-splines DIR. Time between scans had a substantial effect on TRE for all registrations but was only significant for liver-focused rigid, finite element-based and salient feature-based DIRs.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates the limitations of commercially available DIR techniques in TPSs for alignment of longitudinal images of liver cancer presenting complex anatomical changes including local hypertrophy and fibrosis/necrosis. DIR in this setting should be used with caution and careful evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.