Program Information
Automatic Image Registration Performance of Three IGRT Systems for Prostate Radiotherapy
J Barber1,3 , J Sykes1 , L Holloway2,3 , D Thwaites3*, (1) Sydney West Radiation Oncology Network, Sydney, NSW, (4) Ingham Institute, Sydney, NSW, (3) University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW
Presentations
SU-E-J-29 (Sunday, July 12, 2015) 3:00 PM - 6:00 PM Room: Exhibit Hall
Purpose: To compare the performance of an automatic image registration algorithm on image sets collected on three commercial image guidance systems, and explore its relationship with imaging parameters such as dose and sharpness.
Methods: Images of a CIRS Virtually Human Male Pelvis phantom (VHMP) were collected on the CBCT systems of Varian TrueBeam/OBI and Elekta Synergy/XVI linear accelerators, across a range of mAs settings; and MVCT on a Tomotherapy Hi-ART accelerator with a range of pitch. Using the 6D correlation ratio algorithm of XVI, each image was registered to a mask of the prostate volume with a 5 mm expansion. Registrations were repeated 100 times, with random initial offsets introduced to simulate daily matching. Residual registration errors were calculated by correcting for the initial phantom set-up error. Automatic registration was also repeated after reconstructing images with different sharpness filters.
Results: All three systems showed good registration performance, with residual translations <0.5mm (1σ) for typical clinical dose and reconstruction settings. Residual rotational error had larger range, with 0.8°, 1.2° and 1.9° for 1σ in XVI, OBI and Tomotherapy respectively. The registration accuracy of XVI images showed a strong dependence on imaging dose, particularly below 4mGy. No evidence of reduced performance was observed at the lowest dose settings for OBI and Tomotherapy, but these were above 4mGy. Registration failures (maximum target registration error > 3.6 mm on the surface of a 30mm sphere) occurred in 5% to 10% of registrations. Changing the sharpness of image reconstruction had no significant effect on registration performance.
Conclusions: Using the present automatic image registration algorithm, all IGRT systems tested provided satisfactory registrations for clinical use, within a normal range of acquisition settings.
Contact Email: