The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Radiotherapy Department, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Phys Med Biol. 2021 Jan 29;66(3):035019. doi: 10.1088/1361-6560/abcd18.
Deformable image registration (DIR) accuracy is often validated using manually identified landmarks or known deformations generated using digital or physical phantoms. In daily practice, the application of these approaches is limited since they are time-consuming or require additional equipment. An alternative is the use of metrics automatically derived from the registrations, but their interpretation is not straightforward. In this work we aim to determine the suitability of DIR-derived metrics to validate the accuracy of 4 commonly used DIR algorithms. First, we investigated the DIR accuracy using a landmark-based metric (target registration error (TRE)) and a digital phantom-based metric (known deformation recovery error (KDE)). 4DCT scans of 16 thoracic cancer patients along with corresponding pairwise anatomical landmarks (AL) locations were collected from two public databases. Digital phantoms with known deformations were generated by each DIR algorithm to test all other algorithms and compute KDE. TRE and KDE were evaluated at AL. KDE was additionally quantified in coordinates randomly sampled (RS) inside the lungs. Second, we investigated the associations of 5 DIR-derived metrics (distance discordance metric (DDM), inverse consistency error (ICE), transitivity (TE), spatial (SS) and temporal smoothness (TS)) with DIR accuracy through uni- and multivariable linear regression models. TRE values were found higher compared to KDE values and these varied depending on the phantom used. The algorithm with the best accuracy achieved average values of TRE = 1.1 mm and KDE ranging from 0.3 to 0.8 mm. DDM was the best predictor of DIR accuracy, with moderate correlations (R < 0.61). Poor correlations were obtained at AL for algorithms with better accuracy, which improved when evaluated at RS. Only slight correlation improvement was obtained with a multivariable analysis (R < 0.64). DDM can be a useful metric to identify inaccuracies for different DIR algorithms without employing landmarks or digital phantoms.
变形图像配准(DIR)的准确性通常使用手动识别的地标或使用数字或物理体模生成的已知变形来验证。在日常实践中,由于这些方法既耗时又需要额外的设备,因此应用受到限制。另一种方法是使用从配准中自动得出的度量标准,但它们的解释并不直观。在这项工作中,我们旨在确定 DIR 衍生度量标准是否适合验证 4 种常用 DIR 算法的准确性。首先,我们使用基于地标(目标注册误差(TRE))和基于数字体模(已知变形恢复误差(KDE))的度量标准研究了 DIR 的准确性。从两个公共数据库中收集了 16 例胸部癌症患者的 4DCT 扫描以及相应的成对解剖地标(AL)位置。通过每个 DIR 算法生成具有已知变形的数字体模,以测试所有其他算法并计算 KDE。在 AL 处评估了 TRE 和 KDE。KDE 还在肺内随机采样(RS)坐标处进行了量化。其次,我们通过单变量和多变量线性回归模型研究了 5 种 DIR 衍生度量标准(距离不一致性度量标准(DDM),反向一致性误差(ICE),传递性(TE),空间(SS)和时间平滑度(TS))与 DIR 准确性之间的关联。与 KDE 值相比,TRE 值较高,并且这些值取决于所使用的体模而有所不同。具有最佳准确性的算法平均 TRE 值为 1.1mm,KDE 值范围为 0.3 至 0.8mm。DDM 是 DIR 准确性的最佳预测指标,具有中等相关性(R < 0.61)。对于准确性更高的算法,在 AL 处获得的相关性较差,而在 RS 处进行评估时则有所改善。在多变量分析中仅获得了略微的相关性改善(R < 0.64)。DDM 可以是一种有用的度量标准,可用于在不使用地标或数字体模的情况下识别不同 DIR 算法的不准确性。