The need for application-based adaptation of deformable image registration.

PURPOSE To utilize a deformable phantom to objectively evaluate the accuracy of 11 different deformable image registration (DIR) algorithms. METHODS The phantom represents an axial plane of the pelvic anatomy. Urethane plastic serves as the bony anatomy and urethane rubber with three levels of Hounsfield units (HU) is used to represent fat and organs, including the prostate. A plastic insert is placed into the phantom to simulate bladder filling. Nonradiopaque markers reside on the phantom surface. Optical camera images of these markers are used to measure the positions and determine the deformation from the bladder insert. Eleven different DIR algorithms are applied to the full and empty-bladder computed tomography images of the phantom (fixed and moving volumes, respectively) to calculate the deformation. The algorithms include those from MIM Software (MIM) and Velocity Medical Solutions (VEL) and nine different implementations from the deformable image registration and adaptive radiotherapy toolbox for Matlab. These algorithms warp one image to make it similar to another, but must utilize a method for regularization to avoid physically unrealistic deformation scenarios. The mean absolute difference (MAD) between the HUs at the marker locations on one image and the calculated location on the other serves as a metric to evaluate the balance between image similarity and regularization. To demonstrate the effect of regularization on registration accuracy, an additional beta version of MIM was created with a variable smoothness factor that controls the emphasis of the algorithm on regularization. The distance to agreement between the measured and calculated marker deformations is used to compare the overall spatial accuracy of the DIR algorithms. This overall spatial accuracy is also utilized to evaluate the phantom geometry and the ability of the phantom soft-tissue heterogeneity to represent patient data. To evaluate the ability of the DIR algorithms to accurately transfer anatomical contours, the rectum is delineated on both the fixed and moving images. A Dice similarity coefficient is then calculated between the contour on the fixed image and that transferred, via the calculated deformation, from the moving to the fixed image. RESULTS The phantom possesses sufficient soft-tissue heterogeneity to act as a proxy for patient data. Large discrepancies appear between the algorithms and the measured ground-truth deformation. VEL yields the smallest mean spatial error and a Dice coefficient of 0.90. MIM produces the lowest MAD value and the highest Dice coefficient of 0.96, but creates the largest spatial errors. Increasing the MIM smoothness factor above the default value improves the overall spatial accuracy, but the factor associated with the lowest mean error decreases the Dice coefficient to 0.85. CONCLUSIONS Different applications of DIR require disparate balances between image similarity and regularization. A DIR algorithm that is optimized only for its ability to transfer anatomical contours will yield large deformation errors in homogeneous regions, which is problematic for dose mapping. For this reason, these algorithms must be tested for their overall spatial accuracy. The developed phantom is an objective tool for this purpose.

[1]  Takeo Kanade,et al.  An Iterative Image Registration Technique with an Application to Stereo Vision , 1981, IJCAI.

[2]  Berthold K. P. Horn,et al.  Determining Optical Flow , 1981, Other Conferences.

[3]  Charles R. Meyer,et al.  Demonstration of accuracy and clinical versatility of mutual information for automatic multimodality image fusion using affine and thin-plate spline warped geometric deformations , 1997, Medical Image Anal..

[4]  Jean-Philippe Thirion,et al.  Image matching as a diffusion process: an analogy with Maxwell's demons , 1998, Medical Image Anal..

[5]  Stéphane Cotin,et al.  Truth Cube: Establishing Physical Standards for Real Time Soft Tissue Simulation , 2001 .

[6]  Paul Suetens,et al.  A Viscous Fluid Model for Multimodal Non-rigid Image Registration Using Mutual Information , 2002, MICCAI.

[7]  Paul Suetens,et al.  A viscous fluid model for multimodal non-rigid image registration using mutual information , 2003, Medical Image Anal..

[8]  Michael Unser,et al.  Fast parametric elastic image registration , 2003, IEEE Trans. Image Process..

[9]  Stephane Cotin,et al.  Truth cube: Establishing physical standards for soft tissue simulation , 2003, Medical Image Anal..

[10]  James M Balter,et al.  Mutual information based CT registration of the lung at exhale and inhale breathing states using thin-plate splines. , 2004, Medical physics.

[11]  T. Mackie,et al.  Fast free-form deformable registration via calculus of variations , 2004, Physics in medicine and biology.

[12]  David J. Fleet,et al.  Performance of optical flow techniques , 1994, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[13]  Sarang Joshi,et al.  Large deformation three-dimensional image registration in image-guided radiation therapy , 2005, Physics in medicine and biology.

[14]  Joe Y. Chang,et al.  Validation of an accelerated ‘demons’ algorithm for deformable image registration in radiation therapy , 2005, Physics in medicine and biology.

[15]  K. Brock,et al.  Accuracy of finite element model-based multi-organ deformable image registration. , 2005, Medical physics.

[16]  S. Joshi,et al.  Automatic Segmentation of Intra-treatment CT Images for Adaptive Radiation Therapy of the Prostate , 2005, MICCAI.

[17]  Stanislav Kovacic,et al.  Symmetric image registration , 2006, Medical Image Anal..

[18]  Weiguo Lu,et al.  Deformable registration of the planning image (kVCT) and the daily images (MVCT) for adaptive radiation therapy , 2006, Physics in medicine and biology.

[19]  Eike Rietzel,et al.  Deformable registration of 4D computed tomography data. , 2006, Medical physics.

[20]  Quan Chen,et al.  Automatic re-contouring in 4D radiotherapy , 2006, Physics in medicine and biology.

[21]  Di Yan,et al.  Automatic delineation of on-line head-and-neck computed tomography images: toward on-line adaptive radiotherapy. , 2007, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[22]  J. Piper,et al.  SU‐FF‐I‐68: Evaluation of An Intensity‐Based Free‐Form Deformable Registration Algorithm , 2007 .

[23]  Rojano Kashani,et al.  Technical note: a physical phantom for assessment of accuracy of deformable alignment algorithms. , 2007, Medical physics.

[24]  L Dong,et al.  Quantification of accuracy of the automated nonlinear image matching and anatomical labeling (ANIMAL) nonlinear registration algorithm for 4D CT images of lung. , 2007, Medical physics.

[25]  Mathieu De Craene,et al.  Tumour delineation and cumulative dose computation in radiotherapy based on deformable registration of respiratory correlated CT images of lung cancer patients. , 2007, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[26]  R Mohan,et al.  Quantifying the accuracy of automated structure segmentation in 4D CT images using a deformable image registration algorithm. , 2008, Medical physics.

[27]  Quan Chen,et al.  Objective assessment of deformable image registration in radiotherapy: A multi-institution study , 2008 .

[28]  Benoît Macq,et al.  Comparison of 12 deformable registration strategies in adaptive radiation therapy for the treatment of head and neck tumors. , 2008, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[29]  Xiao Han,et al.  Atlas-Based Auto-segmentation of Head and Neck CT Images , 2008, MICCAI.

[30]  Jan Seuntjens,et al.  A deformable phantom for 4D radiotherapy verification: design and image registration evaluation. , 2008, Medical physics.

[31]  George Starkschall,et al.  Comparing the accuracy of four-dimensional photon dose calculations with three-dimensional calculations using moving and deforming phantoms. , 2009, Medical physics.

[32]  T. Holmes,et al.  American Society of Radiation Oncology recommendations for documenting intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatments. , 2009, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[33]  K. Brock.  Results of a multi-institution deformable registration accuracy study (MIDRAS). , 2010, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[34]  Joseph O. Deasy,et al.  Technical Note: DIRART – A software suite for deformable image registration and adaptive radiotherapy research , 2010 .

[35]  Neil Kirby,et al.  A two-dimensional deformable phantom for quantitatively verifying deformation algorithms. , 2011, Medical physics.

[36]  Sasa Mutic,et al.  Technical note: DIRART--A software suite for deformable image registration and adaptive radiotherapy research. , 2011, Medical physics.

[37]  Matthias Guckenberger,et al.  A multi-institution evaluation of deformable image registration algorithms for automatic organ delineation in adaptive head and neck radiotherapy , 2012, Radiation oncology.

[38]  Peter Langguth,et al.  Determination of cell survival after irradiation via clonogenic assay versus multiple MTT Assay - A comparative study , 2012, Radiation Oncology (London, England).

[39]  T Kron,et al.  A novel methodology for 3D deformable dosimetry. , 2012, Medical physics.

[40]  Michael Velec,et al.  A novel technique to enable experimental validation of deformable dose accumulation. , 2012, Medical physics.

[41]  W. Tomé,et al.  On the dosimetric effect and reduction of inverse consistency and transitivity errors in deformable image registration for dose accumulation. , 2011, Medical physics.