Encrypted login | home

Program Information

Comparative Analysis of MIM and Velocity's Image Deformation Algorithm Using Simulated KV-CBCT Images for Quality Assurance

K Cline

K Cline1*, G Narayanasamy1 , M Obediat1 , D Stanley1 , S Stathakis1 , H Kim2 , N Kirby1 , (1) University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, Texas (2) University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA


SU-E-J-89 (Sunday, July 12, 2015) 3:00 PM - 6:00 PM Room: Exhibit Hall

Purpose: Deformable image registration (DIR) is used routinely in the clinic without a formalized quality assurance (QA) process. Using simulated deformations to digitally deform images in a known way and comparing to DIR algorithm predictions is a powerful technique for DIR QA. This technique must also simulate realistic image noise and artifacts, especially between modalities. This study developed an algorithm to create simulated daily kV cone-beam computed-tomography (CBCT) images from CT images for DIR QA between these modalities.

Methods: A Catphan and physical head-and-neck phantom, with known deformations, were used. CT and kV-CBCT images of the Catphan were utilized to characterize the changes in Hounsfield units, noise, and image cupping that occur between these imaging modalities. The algorithm then imprinted these changes onto a CT image of the deformed head-and-neck phantom, thereby creating a simulated-CBCT image. CT and kV-CBCT images of the undeformed and deformed head-and-neck phantom were also acquired. The Velocity and MIM DIR algorithms were applied between the undeformed CT image and each of the deformed CT, CBCT, and simulated-CBCT images to obtain predicted deformations. The error between the known and predicted deformations was used as a metric to evaluate the quality of the simulated-CBCT image. Ideally, the simulated-CBCT image registration would produce the same accuracy as the deformed CBCT image registration.

Results: For Velocity, the mean error was 1.4 mm for the CT-CT registration, 1.7 mm for the CT-CBCT registration, and 1.4 mm for the CT-simulated-CBCT registration. These same numbers were 1.5, 4.5, and 5.9 mm, respectively, for MIM.

Conclusion: All cases produced similar accuracy for Velocity. MIM produced similar values of accuracy for CT-CT registration, but was not as accurate for CT-CBCT registrations. The MIM simulated-CBCT registration followed this same trend, but overestimated MIM DIR errors relative to the CT-CBCT registration.

Contact Email: