Premium
SU‐E‐J‐58: Comparison of Conformal Tracking Methods Using Initial, Adaptive and Preceding Image Frames for Image Registration
Author(s) -
Teo P,
Guo K,
Alayoubi N,
Kehler K,
Pistorius S
Publication year - 2015
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 - 10.1118/1.4924145
Subject(s) - computer vision , artificial intelligence , optical flow , image registration , computer science , standard deviation , lung tumor , tracking (education) , nuclear medicine , aperture (computer memory) , image guided radiation therapy , lung cancer , medical imaging , image (mathematics) , mathematics , medicine , physics , psychology , pedagogy , statistics , acoustics
Purpose: Accounting for tumor motion during radiation therapy is important to ensure that the tumor receives the prescribed dose. Increasing the field size to account for this motion exposes the surrounding healthy tissues to unnecessary radiation. In contrast to using motion‐encompassing techniques to treat moving tumors, conformal radiation therapy (RT) uses a smaller field to track the tumor and adapts the beam aperture according to the motion detected. This work investigates and compares the performance of three markerless, EPID based, optical flow methods to track tumor motion with conformal RT. Methods: Three techniques were used to track the motions of a 3D printed lung tumor programmed to move according to the tumor of seven lung cancer patients. These techniques utilized a multi‐resolution optical flow algorithm as the core computation for image registration. The first method (DIR) registers the incoming images with an initial reference frame, while the second method (RFSF) uses an adaptive reference frame and the third method (CU) uses preceding image frames for registration. The patient traces and errors were evaluated for the seven patients. Results: The average position errors for all patient traces were 0.12 ± 0.33 mm, −0.05 ± 0.04 mm and −0.28 ± 0.44 mm for CU, DIR and RFSF method respectively. The position errors distributed within 1 standard deviation are 0.74 mm, 0.37 mm and 0.96 mm respectively. The CU and RFSF algorithms are sensitive to the characteristics of the patient trace and produce a wider distribution of errors amongst patients. Although the mean error for the DIR method is negatively biased (−0.05 mm) for all patients, it has the narrowest distribution of position error, which can be corrected using an offset calibration. Conclusion: Three techniques of image registration and position update were studied. Using direct comparison with an initial frame yields the best performance. The authors would like to thank Dr.YeLin Suh for making the Cyberknife dataset available to us. Scholarship funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and CancerCare Manitoba Foundation is acknowledged.