TY - JOUR
T1 - Multi-institutional Validation Study of Commercially Available Deformable Image Registration Software for Thoracic Images
AU - Kadoya, Noriyuki
AU - Nakajima, Yujiro
AU - Saito, Masahide
AU - Miyabe, Yuki
AU - Kurooka, Masahiko
AU - Kito, Satoshi
AU - Fujita, Yukio
AU - Sasaki, Motoharu
AU - Arai, Kazuhiro
AU - Tani, Kensuke
AU - Yagi, Masashi
AU - Wakita, Akihisa
AU - Tohyama, Naoki
AU - Jingu, Keiichi
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2016/10/1
Y1 - 2016/10/1
N2 - Purpose To assess the accuracy of the commercially available deformable image registration (DIR) software for thoracic images at multiple institutions. Methods and Materials Thoracic 4-dimensional (4D) CT images of 10 patients with esophageal or lung cancer were used. Datasets for these patients were provided by DIR-lab (dir-lab.com) and included a coordinate list of anatomic landmarks (300 bronchial bifurcations) that had been manually identified. Deformable image registration was performed between the peak-inhale and -exhale images. Deformable image registration error was determined by calculating the difference at each landmark point between the displacement calculated by DIR software and that calculated by the landmark. Results Eleven institutions participated in this study: 4 used RayStation (RaySearch Laboratories, Stockholm, Sweden), 5 used MIM Software (Cleveland, OH), and 3 used Velocity (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA). The ranges of the average absolute registration errors over all cases were as follows: 0.48 to 1.51 mm (right-left), 0.53 to 2.86 mm (anterior-posterior), 0.85 to 4.46 mm (superior-inferior), and 1.26 to 6.20 mm (3-dimensional). For each DIR software package, the average 3-dimensional registration error (range) was as follows: RayStation, 3.28 mm (1.26-3.91 mm); MIM Software, 3.29 mm (2.17-3.61 mm); and Velocity, 5.01 mm (4.02-6.20 mm). These results demonstrate that there was moderate variation among institutions, although the DIR software was the same. Conclusions We evaluated the commercially available DIR software using thoracic 4D-CT images from multiple centers. Our results demonstrated that DIR accuracy differed among institutions because it was dependent on both the DIR software and procedure. Our results could be helpful for establishing prospective clinical trials and for the widespread use of DIR software. In addition, for clinical care, we should try to find the optimal DIR procedure using thoracic 4D-CT data.
AB - Purpose To assess the accuracy of the commercially available deformable image registration (DIR) software for thoracic images at multiple institutions. Methods and Materials Thoracic 4-dimensional (4D) CT images of 10 patients with esophageal or lung cancer were used. Datasets for these patients were provided by DIR-lab (dir-lab.com) and included a coordinate list of anatomic landmarks (300 bronchial bifurcations) that had been manually identified. Deformable image registration was performed between the peak-inhale and -exhale images. Deformable image registration error was determined by calculating the difference at each landmark point between the displacement calculated by DIR software and that calculated by the landmark. Results Eleven institutions participated in this study: 4 used RayStation (RaySearch Laboratories, Stockholm, Sweden), 5 used MIM Software (Cleveland, OH), and 3 used Velocity (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA). The ranges of the average absolute registration errors over all cases were as follows: 0.48 to 1.51 mm (right-left), 0.53 to 2.86 mm (anterior-posterior), 0.85 to 4.46 mm (superior-inferior), and 1.26 to 6.20 mm (3-dimensional). For each DIR software package, the average 3-dimensional registration error (range) was as follows: RayStation, 3.28 mm (1.26-3.91 mm); MIM Software, 3.29 mm (2.17-3.61 mm); and Velocity, 5.01 mm (4.02-6.20 mm). These results demonstrate that there was moderate variation among institutions, although the DIR software was the same. Conclusions We evaluated the commercially available DIR software using thoracic 4D-CT images from multiple centers. Our results demonstrated that DIR accuracy differed among institutions because it was dependent on both the DIR software and procedure. Our results could be helpful for establishing prospective clinical trials and for the widespread use of DIR software. In addition, for clinical care, we should try to find the optimal DIR procedure using thoracic 4D-CT data.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84994494253&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84994494253&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.05.012
DO - 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.05.012
M3 - Article
C2 - 27475673
AN - SCOPUS:84994494253
SN - 0360-3016
VL - 96
SP - 422
EP - 431
JO - International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
JF - International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
IS - 2
ER -