Higgins Jane, Bezjak Andrea, Franks Kevin, Le Lisa W, Cho B C, Payne David, Bissonnette Jean-Pierre
Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 Apr 1;73(5):1404-13. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.06.1926. Epub 2008 Sep 17.
To assess the feasibility, reproducibility, and accuracy of volumetric lung image guidance using different thoracic landmarks for image registration.
In 30 lung patients, four independent observers conducted automated and manual image registrations on Day 1 cone-beam computed tomography data sets using the spine, carina, and tumor (720 image registrations). The image registration was timed, and the couch displacements were recorded. The intraclass correlation was used to assess reproducibility, and the Bland-Altman analysis was used to compare the automatic and manual matching methods. Tumor coverage (accuracy) was assessed through grading the tumor position after image matching against the internal target volume and planning target volume.
The image-guided process took an average of 1 min for all techniques, with the exception of manual tumor matching, which took 4 min. Reproducibility was greatest for automatic carina matching (intraclass correlation, 0.90-0.93) and lowest for manual tumor matching (intraclass correlation, 0.07-0.43) in the left-right, superoinferior, and anteroposterior directions, respectively. The Bland-Altman analysis showed no significant difference between the automatic and manual registration methods. The tumor was within the internal target volume 62% and 60% of the time and was outside the internal target volume, but within the planning target volume, 38% and 40% of the time after automatic spine and automatic carina matching, respectively.
For advanced lung cancer, the spine or carina can be used equally for cone-beam computed tomography image registration without compromising target coverage. The carina was more reproducible than the spine, but additional analysis is required to confirm its validation as a tumor surrogate. Soft-tissue registration is unsuitable at present, given the limitations in contrast resolution and the high interobserver variability.
评估使用不同胸部标志进行图像配准的容积式肺部图像引导的可行性、可重复性和准确性。
在30例肺部患者中,四名独立观察者在第1天使用脊柱、隆突和肿瘤对锥形束计算机断层扫描数据集进行自动和手动图像配准(720次图像配准)。记录图像配准时间和治疗床位移。组内相关系数用于评估可重复性,Bland-Altman分析用于比较自动和手动匹配方法。通过将图像匹配后的肿瘤位置与内部靶区体积和计划靶区体积进行分级来评估肿瘤覆盖范围(准确性)。
除手动肿瘤匹配耗时4分钟外,所有技术的图像引导过程平均耗时1分钟。在左右、上下和前后方向上,自动隆突匹配的可重复性最高(组内相关系数,0.90 - 0.93),手动肿瘤匹配的可重复性最低(组内相关系数,0.07 - 0.43)。Bland-Altman分析显示自动和手动配准方法之间无显著差异。自动脊柱匹配和自动隆突匹配后,肿瘤分别有62%和60%的时间位于内部靶区体积内,有38%和40%的时间位于内部靶区体积外但在计划靶区体积内。
对于晚期肺癌,脊柱或隆突可同等用于锥形束计算机断层扫描图像配准,而不会影响靶区覆盖。隆突比脊柱更具可重复性,但需要进一步分析以确认其作为肿瘤替代物的有效性。鉴于对比度分辨率的限制和观察者间的高变异性,目前软组织配准不合适。