Premium
SU‐E‐J‐217: Accuracy Comparison Between Surface and Volumetric Registrations for Patient Setup of Head and Neck Radiation Therapy
Author(s) -
Kim Y,
Li R,
Na Y,
Jenkins C,
Lee R,
Xing L
Publication year - 2014
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 - 10.1118/1.4888270
Subject(s) - image registration , cone beam computed tomography , medical imaging , nuclear medicine , head and neck , radiation treatment planning , radiation therapy , medical physics , image guided radiation therapy , medicine , computer vision , biomedical engineering , computer science , artificial intelligence , computed tomography , radiology , surgery , image (mathematics)
Purpose: Optical surface imaging has been applied to radiation therapy patient setup. This study aims to investigate the accuracy of the surface registration of the optical surface imaging compared with that of the conventional method of volumetric registration for patient setup in head and neck radiation therapy. Methods: Clinical datasets of planning CT and treatment Cone Beam CT (CBCT) were used to compare the surface and volumetric registrations in radiation therapy patient setup. The Iterative Closest Points based on point‐plane closest method was implemented for surface registration. We employed 3D Slicer for rigid volumetric registration of planning CT and treatment CBCT. 6 parameters of registration results (3 rotations and 3 translations) were obtained by the two registration methods, and the results were compared. Digital simulation tests in ideal cases were also performed to validate each registration method. Results: Digital simulation tests showed that both of the registration methods were accurate and robust enough to compare the registration results. In experiments with the actual clinical data, the results showed considerable deviation between the surface and volumetric registrations. The average root mean squared translational error was 2.7 mm and the maximum translational error was 5.2 mm. Conclusion: The deviation between the surface and volumetric registrations was considerable. Special caution should be taken in using an optical surface imaging. To ensure the accuracy of optical surface imaging in radiation therapy patient setup, additional measures are required. This research was supported in part by the KIST institutional program (2E24551), the Industrial Strategic technology development program (10035495) funded by the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (MOTIE, KOREA), and the Radiation Safety Research Programs (1305033) through the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission, and the NIH (R01EB016777).