Encrypted login | home

Program Information

Comparison of Registration Methods for Modeling Pathologic Response of Esophageal Cancer to Chemoradiation Therapy

S Riyahi

S Riyahi*, W Choi , N Bhooshan , S Tan , H Zhang , W Lu , University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD


SU-C-207B-6 (Sunday, July 31, 2016) 1:00 PM - 1:55 PM Room: 207 B

Purpose:To compare linear and deformable registration methods for evaluation of tumor response to Chemoradiation therapy (CRT) in patients with esophageal cancer.

Methods:Linear and multi-resolution BSpline deformable registration were performed on Pre-Post-CRT CT/PET images of 20 patients with esophageal cancer. For both registration methods, we registered CT using Mean Square Error (MSE) metric, however to register PET we used transformation obtained using Mutual Information (MI) from the same CT due to being multi-modality. Similarity of Warped-CT/PET was quantitatively evaluated using Normalized Mutual Information and plausibility of DF was assessed using inverse consistency Error. To evaluate tumor response four groups of tumor features were examined: (1) Conventional PET/CT e.g. SUV, diameter (2) Clinical parameters e.g. TNM stage, histology (3)spatial-temporal PET features that describe intensity, texture and geometry of tumor (4)all features combined. Dominant features were identified using 10-fold cross-validation and Support Vector Machine (SVM) was deployed for tumor response prediction while the accuracy was evaluated by ROC Area Under Curve (AUC).

Results:Average and standard deviation of Normalized mutual information for deformable registration using MSE was 0.2±0.054 and for linear registration was 0.1±0.026, showing higher NMI for deformable registration. Likewise for MI metric, deformable registration had 0.13±0.035 comparing to linear counterpart with 0.12±0.037. Inverse consistency error for deformable registration for MSE metric was 4.65±2.49 and for linear was 1.32±2.3 showing smaller value for linear registration. The same conclusion was obtained for MI in terms of inverse consistency error. AUC for both linear and deformable registration was 1 showing no absolute difference in terms of response evaluation.

Conclusion:Deformable registration showed better NMI comparing to linear registration, however inverse consistency of transformation was lower in linear registration. We do not expect to see significant difference when warping PET images using deformable or linear registration.

Funding Support, Disclosures, and Conflict of Interest: This work was supported in part by the National Cancer Institute Grants R01CA172638.

Contact Email: