Premium
WE‐AB‐BRA‐09: Sensitivity of Plan Re‐Optimization to Errors in Deformable Image Registration in Online Adaptive Image‐Guided Radiation Therapy
Author(s) -
McClain B,
Olsen J,
Green O,
Yang D,
Santanam L,
Olsen L,
Zhao T,
Rodriguez V,
Wooten H,
Mutic S,
Victoria J,
Dempsey J,
Kashani R
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 - 10.1118/1.4925862
Subject(s) - contouring , image guided radiation therapy , computer science , image registration , margin (machine learning) , nuclear medicine , medical physics , artificial intelligence , computer vision , medicine , medical imaging , computer graphics (images) , image (mathematics) , machine learning
Purpose: Online adaptive therapy (ART) relies on auto‐contouring using deformable image registration (DIR). DIR's inherent uncertainties require user intervention and manual edits while the patient is on the table. We investigated the dosimetric impact of DIR errors on the quality of re‐optimized plans, and used the findings to establish regions for focusing manual edits to where DIR errors can Result in clinically relevant dose differences. Methods: Our clinical implementation of online adaptive MR‐IGRT involves using DIR to transfer contours from CT to daily MR, followed by a physicians’ edits. The plan is then re‐optimized to meet the organs at risk (OARs) constraints. Re‐optimized abdomen and pelvis plans generated based on physician edited OARs were selected as the baseline for evaluation. Plans were then re‐optimized on auto‐deformed contours with manual edits limited to pre‐defined uniform rings (0 to 5cm) around the PTV. A 0cm ring indicates that the auto‐deformed OARs were used without editing. The magnitude of the variations caused by the non‐deterministic optimizer was quantified by repeat re‐optimizations on the same geometry to determine the mean and standard deviation (STD). For each re‐optimized plan, various volumetric parameters for the PTV, the OARs were extracted along with DVH and isodose evaluation. A plan was deemed acceptable if the variation from the baseline plan was within one STD. Results: Initial results show that for abdomen and pancreas cases, a minimum of 5cm margin around the PTV is required for contour corrections, while for pelvic and liver cases a 2–3 cm margin is sufficient. Conclusion: Focusing manual contour edits to regions of dosimetric relevance can reduce contouring time in the online ART process while maintaining a clinically comparable plan. Future work will further refine the contouring region by evaluating the path along the beams, dose gradients near the target and OAR dose metrics.