Suppr超能文献

评价一个商业的 DIR 平台在接受调强放疗/VMAT 治疗的前列腺癌患者中的靶区勾画。

Evaluation of a commercial DIR platform for contour propagation in prostate cancer patients treated with IMRT/VMAT.

机构信息

Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC.

MIM Software, Cleveland, OH.

出版信息

J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2020 Feb;21(2):14-25. doi: 10.1002/acm2.12787.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To assess the performance and limitations of contour propagation with three commercial deformable image registration (DIR) algorithms using fractional scans of CT-on-rails (CTOR) and Cone Beam CT (CBCT) in image guided prostate therapy patients treated with IMRT/VMAT.

METHODS

Twenty prostate cancer patients treated with IMRT/VMAT were selected for analysis. A total of 453 fractions across those patients were analyzed. Image data were imported into MIM (MIM Software, Inc., Cleveland, OH) and three DIR algorithms (DIR Profile, normalized intensity-based (NIB) and shadowed NIB DIR algorithms) were applied to deformably register each fraction with the planning CT. Manually drawn contours of bladder and rectum were utilized for comparison against the DIR propagated contours in each fraction. Four metrics were utilized in the evaluation of contour similarity, the Hausdorff Distance (HD), Mean Distance to Agreement (MDA), Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), and Jaccard indices. A subfactor analysis was performed per modality (CTOR vs. CBCT) and time (fraction). Point estimates and 95% confidence intervals were assessed via a Linear Mixed Effect model for the contour similarity metrics.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences were observed between the DIR Profile and NIB algorithms. However, statistically significant differences were observed between the shadowed NIB and NIB algorithms for some of the DIR evaluation metrics. The Hausdorff Distance calculation showed the NIB propagated contours vs. shadowed NIB propagated contours against the manual contours were 14.82 mm vs. 8.34 mm for bladder and 15.87 mm vs. 11 mm for rectum, respectively. Similarly, the Mean Distance to Agreement calculation comparing the NIB propagated contours vs. shadowed NIB propagated contours against the manual contours were 2.43 mm vs. 0.98 mm for bladder and 2.57 mm vs. 1.00 mm for rectum, respectively. The Dice Similarity Coefficients comparing the NIB propagated contours and shadowed NIB propagated contours against the manual contours were 0.844 against 0.936 for bladder and 0.772 against 0.907 for rectum, respectively. The Jaccard indices comparing the NIB propagated contours and shadowed NIB propagated contours against the manual contours were 0.749 against 0.884 for bladder and 0.637 against 0.831 for rectum, respectively. The shadowed NIB DIR, which showed the closest agreement with the manual contours performed significantly better than the DIR Profile in all the comparisons. The OAR with the greatest agreement varied substantially across patients and image guided radiation therapy (IGRT) modality. Intra-patient variability of contour metric evaluation was insignificant across all the DIR algorithms. Statistical significance at α = 0.05 was observed for manual vs. deformably propagated contours for bladder for all the metrics except Hausdorff Distance (P = 0.01 for MDA, P = 0.02 for DSC, P = 0.01 for Jaccard), whereas the corresponding values for rectum were: P = 0.03 for HD, P = 0.01 for MDA, P < 0.01 for DSC, P < 0.01 for Jaccard. The performance of the different metrics varied slightly across the fractions of each patient, which indicates that weekly contour propagation models provide a reasonable approximation of the daily contour propagation models.

CONCLUSION

The high variance of Hausdorff Distance across all automated methods for bladder indicates widely variable agreement across fractions for all patients. Lower variance across all modalities, methods, and metrics were observed for rectum. The shadowed NIB propagated contours were substantially more similar to the manual contours than the DIR Profile or NIB contours for both the CTOR and CBCT imaging modalities. The relationship of each algorithm to similarity with manual contours is consistent across all observed metrics and organs. Screening of image guidance for substantial differences in bladder and rectal filling compared with the planning CT reference could aid in identifying fractions for which automated DIR would prove insufficient.

摘要

目的

评估三种商业形变图像配准(DIR)算法在使用 CT-on-rails(CTOR)和锥形束 CT(CBCT)的分数扫描进行图像引导前列腺治疗的 IMRT/VMAT 治疗的前列腺癌患者中的性能和局限性。

方法

选择 20 名接受 IMRT/VMAT 治疗的前列腺癌患者进行分析。对这些患者的 453 个分数进行了分析。将图像数据导入到 MIM(MIM Software,Inc.,克利夫兰,OH)中,并应用三种 DIR 算法(DIR Profile、基于归一化强度的(NIB)和阴影 NIB DIR 算法)将每个分数与计划 CT 进行变形配准。手动绘制的膀胱和直肠轮廓用于与每个分数中的 DIR 传播轮廓进行比较。评估轮廓相似性的四个指标是 Hausdorff 距离(HD)、平均距离一致(MDA)、Dice 相似系数(DSC)和 Jaccard 指数。对模态(CTOR 与 CBCT)和时间(分数)进行了子因素分析。使用线性混合效应模型评估轮廓相似性指标的点估计和 95%置信区间。

结果

在 DIR Profile 和 NIB 算法之间没有观察到统计学上的显著差异。然而,在一些 DIR 评估指标中,观察到阴影 NIB 和 NIB 算法之间存在统计学上的显著差异。Hausdorff 距离计算表明,NIB 传播轮廓与阴影 NIB 传播轮廓与手动轮廓的比较结果分别为膀胱的 14.82mm 与 8.34mm,直肠的 15.87mm 与 11mm。同样,平均距离一致的计算结果表明,膀胱的 NIB 传播轮廓与阴影 NIB 传播轮廓与手动轮廓的比较结果分别为 2.43mm 与 0.98mm,直肠的 NIB 传播轮廓与阴影 NIB 传播轮廓与手动轮廓的比较结果分别为 2.57mm 与 1.00mm。比较 NIB 传播轮廓和阴影 NIB 传播轮廓与手动轮廓的 Dice 相似系数分别为膀胱的 0.844 与 0.936,直肠的 0.772 与 0.907。比较 NIB 传播轮廓和阴影 NIB 传播轮廓与手动轮廓的 Jaccard 指数分别为膀胱的 0.749 与 0.884,直肠的 0.637 与 0.831。与手动轮廓最接近的阴影 NIB DIR 在所有比较中均优于 DIR Profile。与手动轮廓最接近的 OAR 在患者和图像引导放射治疗(IGRT)模态之间存在很大差异。所有 DIR 算法的轮廓度量评估的患者内变异性都不显著。除了 Hausdorff 距离(MDA 的 P=0.01,DSC 的 P=0.02,Jaccard 的 P=0.01),所有指标的手动与可变形传播轮廓的比较均具有统计学意义(膀胱的 P=0.03,MDA 的 P=0.01,DSC 的 P<0.01,Jaccard 的 P<0.01),而直肠的相应值为:HD 的 P=0.03,MDA 的 P=0.01,DSC 的 P<0.01,Jaccard 的 P<0.01。每个患者的每个分数的不同指标的性能略有变化,这表明每周的轮廓传播模型可以合理地近似于每日的轮廓传播模型。

结论

所有自动方法的膀胱的 Hausdorff 距离的高度方差表明所有患者的分数之间的一致性差异很大。膀胱的所有模态、方法和指标的方差都较低,直肠的方差则较低。对于 CTOR 和 CBCT 成像模态,阴影 NIB 传播轮廓与手动轮廓的相似度明显高于 DIR Profile 或 NIB 轮廓。每种算法与手动轮廓相似性的关系在所有观察到的指标和器官中都是一致的。对膀胱和直肠充盈与计划 CT 参考的明显差异进行图像引导筛查,可以帮助确定自动化 DIR 证明不足的分数。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/dec0/7020979/8956b8d0bb8d/ACM2-21-14-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验