Kumar M Anil, Hajare Raghavendra, Nath Bhakti Dev, Lakshmi K K Sree, Mahantshetty Umesh M
Department of Radiation Oncology, Homi Bhabha Cancer Hospital and Research Centre, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India.
Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Medical Centre, Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
J Med Phys. 2024 Apr-Jun;49(2):240-249. doi: 10.4103/jmp.jmp_167_23. Epub 2024 Jun 25.
To commission and validate commercial deformable image registration (DIR) systems (SmartAdapt and Velocity™) using task group 132 (TG-132) digital phantom datasets. Additionally, the study compares and verifies the DIR algorithms of the two systems.
TG-132 digital phantoms were obtained from the American Association of Physicists in Medicine website and imported into SmartAdapt and Velocity™ systems for commissioning and validation. The registration results were compared with known shifts using rigid registrations and deformable registrations. Virtual head and neck phantoms obtained online (DIR Evaluation Project) and some selected clinical data sets from the department were imported into the two DIR systems. For both of these datasets, DIR was carried out between the source and target images, and the contours were then propagated from the source to the target image data set. The dice similarity coefficient (DSC), mean distance to agreement (MDA), and Jacobian determinant measures were utilised to evaluate the registration results.
The recommended criteria for commissioning and validation of DIR system from TG-132 was error <0.5voxel dimension (vd). Translation only registration: Both systems met TG-132 recommendations except computed tomography (CT)-positron emission tomography registration in both systems (Velocity ~1.1vd, SmartAdapt ~1.6vd). Translational and rotational registration: Both systems failed the criteria for all modalities (For velocity, error ranged from 0.6vd [CT-CT registration] to 3.4vd [CT-cone-beam CT (CBCT) registration]. For SmartAdapt the range was 0.6vd [CT-CBCT] to 3.6*vd [CT-CT]). Mean ± standard deviation for DSC, MDA and Jacobian metrics were used to compare the DIR results between SmartAdapt and Velocity™.
The DIR algorithms of SmartAdapt and Velocity™ were commissioned and their deformation results were compared. Both systems can be used for clinical purpose. While there were only minimal differences between the two systems, Velocity™ provided lower values for parotids, bladder, rectum, and prostate (soft tissue) compared to SmartAdapt. However, for mandible, spinal cord, and femoral heads (rigid structures), both systems showed nearly identical results.
使用任务组132（TG - 132）数字体模数据集对商用可变形图像配准（DIR）系统（SmartAdapt和Velocity™）进行调试和验证。此外，该研究还比较并验证了这两个系统的DIR算法。
从医学物理学会网站获取TG - 132数字体模，并导入SmartAdapt和Velocity™系统进行调试和验证。使用刚性配准和可变形配准将配准结果与已知位移进行比较。将在线获取的虚拟头颈部体模（DIR评估项目）和该科室的一些选定临床数据集导入这两个DIR系统。对于这两个数据集，在源图像和目标图像之间进行DIR，然后将轮廓从源图像传播到目标图像数据集。使用骰子相似系数（DSC）、平均一致距离（MDA）和雅可比行列式测量来评估配准结果。
来自TG - 132的DIR系统调试和验证的推荐标准是误差<0.5×体素尺寸（vd）。仅平移配准：两个系统均符合TG - 132的建议，但两个系统中的计算机断层扫描（CT） - 正电子发射断层扫描配准除外（Velocity约为1.1×vd，SmartAdapt约为1.6×vd）。平移和旋转配准：两个系统在所有模态下均未达到标准（对于Velocity，误差范围从0.6×vd [CT - CT配准]到3.4×vd [CT - 锥束CT（CBCT）配准]。对于SmartAdapt，范围是0.6×vd [CT - CBCT]到3.6×vd [CT - CT]）。使用DSC、MDA和雅可比度量的均值±标准差来比较SmartAdapt和Velocity™之间的DIR结果。
对SmartAdapt和Velocity™的DIR算法进行了调试，并比较了它们的变形结果。两个系统均可用于临床。虽然两个系统之间只有极小的差异，但与SmartAdapt相比，Velocity™在腮腺、膀胱、直肠和前列腺（软组织）方面的值较低。然而，对于下颌骨、脊髓和股骨头（刚性结构），两个系统显示出几乎相同的结果。
