Premium
SU‐F‐I‐51: CT/MR Image Deformation: The Clinical Assessment QA in Target Delineation
Author(s) -
Yang C,
Chen Y
Publication year - 2016
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 - 10.1118/1.4955879
Subject(s) - image registration , jacobian matrix and determinant , rigid transformation , deformation (meteorology) , artificial intelligence , translation (biology) , computer vision , nuclear medicine , similarity (geometry) , medicine , image fusion , process (computing) , computer science , mathematics , image (mathematics) , physics , biochemistry , chemistry , meteorology , messenger rna , gene , operating system
Purpose: To study the deformation effects in CT/MR image registration of head and neck (HN) cancers. We present a clinical indication in guiding and simplifying registration procedures of this process while CT images possessed artifacts. Methods: CT/MR image fusion provides better soft tissue contrast in intracranial GTV definition with artifacts. However, whether the fusion process should include the deformation process is questionable and not recommended. We performed CT/MR image registration of a HN patient with tonsil GTV and nodes delineation on Varian Velocity™ system. Both rigid transformation and deformable registration of the same CT/MR imaging data were processed separately. Physician's selection of target delineation was implemented to identify the variations. Transformation matrix was shown with visual identification, as well as the deformation QA numbers and figures were assessed. Results: The deformable CT/MR images were traced with the calculated matrix, both translation and rotational parameters were summarized. In deformable quality QA, the calculated Jacobian matrix was analyzed, which the min/mean/max of 0.73/0/99/1.37, respectively. Jacobian matrix of right neck node was 0.84/1.13/1.41, which present dis‐similarity of the nodal area. If Jacobian = 1, the deformation is at the optimum situation. In this case, the deformation results have shown better target delineation for CT/MR deformation than rigid transformation. Though the root‐mean‐square vector difference is 1.48 mm, with similar rotational components, the cord and vertebrae position were aligned much better in the deformable MR images than the rigid transformation. Conclusion: CT/MR with/without image deformation presents similar image registration matrix; there were significant differentiate the anatomical structures in the region of interest by deformable process. Though vendor suggested only rigid transformation between CT/MR assuming the geometry remain similar, our findings indicated with patient positional variations, deformation registration is needed to generate proper GTV coverage, which will be irradiated more accurately in the following boost phase.