ArticleJournal of medical physics
The Investigating Image Registration Accuracy and Contour Propagation for Adaptive Radiotherapy Purposes in Line with the Task Group No. 132 Recommendation.
Article in Journal of medical physics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Image registration is a crucial component of the adaptive radiotherapy workflow. This study investigates the accuracy of the deformable image registration (DIR) and contour propagation features of SmartAdapt, an application in the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) version 16.1. Materials and Methods: The registration accuracy was validated using the Task Group No. 132 (TG-132) virtual phantom, which features contour evaluation and landmark analysis based on the quantitative criteria recommended in the American Association of Physicists in Medicine TG-132 report. The target registration error, Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), and center of mass displacement were used as quantitative validation metrics. The performance of the contour propagation feature was evaluated using clinical datasets (head and neck, pelvis, and chest) and an additional four-dimensional computed tomography (CT) dataset from TG-132. The primary planning and the second CT images were appropriately registered and deformed. The DSC was used to find the volume overlapping between the deformed contours and the radiation oncologist (RO)-drawn contour. The clinical value of the DIR-generated structure was reviewed and scored by an experienced RO to make a qualitative assessment. Results: The registration accuracy fell within the specified tolerances. SmartAdapt exhibited a reasonably propagated contour for the chest and head-and-neck regions, with DSC values of 0.80 for organs at risk. Misregistration is frequently observed in the pelvic region, which is specified as a low-contrast region. However, 78% of structures required no modification or minor modification, demonstrating good agreement between contour comparison and the qualitative analysis. Conclusions: SmartAdapt has adequate efficiency for image registration and contour propagation for adaptive purposes in various anatomical sites. However, there should be concern about its performance in regions with low contrast and small volumes.
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.