Quantitative vs. subjective portal verification using digital portal images.

PURPOSE

Off-line, computer-aided prescription (simulator) and treatment (portal) image registration using chamfer matching has been implemented on PC based viewing station. The purposes of this study were (a) to evaluate the performance of interactive anatomy and field edge extraction and subsequent registration, and (b) to compare observer's perceptions of field accuracy with measured discrepancies following anatomical registration.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Prescription-treatment image pairs for 48 different patients were examined in this study. Digital prescription images were produced with the aid of a television camera and a digital frame grabber, while the treatment images were obtained directly from an on-line portal imaging system. To facilitate perception of low contrast anatomical detail, on-line portal images were enhanced with selective adaptive histogram equalization prior to extraction of anatomical edges. Following interactive extraction of anatomical and field border information by an experienced observer, the identified anatomy was registered using chamfer matching. The degree of conformity between the prescription and treatment fields was quantified using several parameters, which included relative prescription field coverage and overcoverage, as well as the translational and rotational displacements as measured by chamfer matching applied to the boundaries of the two fields. These quantitative measures were compared with subjective evaluations made by four radiation oncologists.

RESULTS

All the images in this series that included a range of the most commonly seen treatment sites were registered and the conformity parameters were found. The mean treatment/prescription field coverage and overcoverage were approximately 95 and 7%, respectively before registration. The mean translational displacement in the transverse and cranio-caudal directions were 2.9 and 3.4 mm, respectively. The mean rotational displacement was approximately 2 degrees. For all four oncologists, the portals classified as unacceptable, in terms of the field placement, exhibited significantly higher (p < 0.03) translational errors in the transverse direction. The field coverages were significantly lower (p < 0.05) and the translational errors in the cranio-caudal direction were significantly higher (p < 0.05) for the portals rated as unacceptable by two of the oncologists.

CONCLUSIONS

From the parameters that were used to quantify the degree of conformity between the prescription and treatment fields, the translational error in the transverse direction correlated best with the oncologists' assessments on the field placement. Field coverage and translational error in the cranio-caudal direction correlated well with assessments of only two out of the four participating oncologists. This can be explained by the fact that for the majority of treatment sites included in the study the positioning of field borders was more critical for the transverse direction. A conclusion for the design of future quantitative and automated on-line portal verification systems is that they will have to model different perceived significances of different types of localization errors intrinsic to oncologist evaluation of portal images.