Premium
SU‐E‐J‐90: 2D/3D Registration Using KV‐MV Image Pairs for Higher Accuracy Image Guided Radiotherapy
Author(s) -
Furtado H,
Figl M,
Stock M,
Georg D,
Birkfellner W
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.4734926
Subject(s) - image registration , computer vision , artificial intelligence , computer science , match moving , image (mathematics) , tracking (education) , medical imaging , nuclear medicine , mathematics , motion (physics) , medicine , psychology , pedagogy
Purpose: In this work, we investigate the impact of using paired portal mega‐voltage (MV) and kilo‐voltage (kV) images, on 2D/3D registration accuracy with the purpose of improving tumor motion tracking during radiotherapy. Tumor motion tracking is important as motion remains one of the biggest sources of uncertainty in dose application. 2D/3D registration is successfully used in online tumor motion tracking, nevertheless, one limitation of this technique is the inability to resolve movement along the imaging beam axis using only one projection image. Methods: Our evaluation consisted in comparing the accuracy of registration using different 2D image combinations: only one 2D image (1‐kV), one kV and one MV image (1kV‐1MV) and two kV images (2‐kV). For each of the image combinations we evaluated the registration results using 250 starting points as initial displacements from the gold standard. We measured the final mean target registration error (mTRE) and the success rate for each registration. Each of the combinations was evaluated using four different merit functions. Results: When using the MI merit function (a popular choice for this application) the RMS mTRE drops from 6.4 mm when using only one image to 2.1 mm when using image pairs. The success rate increases from 62% to 99.6%. A similar trend was observed for all four merit functions. Typically, the results are slightly better with 2‐kV images than with 1kV‐1MV. Conclusions: We evaluated the impact of using different image combinations on accuracy of 2D/3D registration for tumor motion monitoring. Our results show that using a kV‐MV image pair, leads to improved results as motion can be accurately resolved in six degrees of freedom. Given the possibility to acquire these two images simultaneously, this is not only very workflow efficient but is also shown to be a good approach to improve registration accuracy.