Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 13, 2026
Dynamic Lung Tumor Tracking for Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiation Therapy
Published on: June 7, 2015
Evaluation of 4-dimensional computed tomography to 4-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography deformable image
Salim Balik1, Elisabeth Weiss, Nuzhat Jan
1Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA.
Purpose:
To evaluate 2 deformable image registration (DIR) algorithms for the purpose of contour mapping to support image-guided adaptive radiation therapy with 4-dimensional cone-beam CT (4DCBCT).
Methods And Materials:
One planning 4D fan-beam CT (4DFBCT) and 7 weekly 4DCBCT scans were acquired for 10 locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients. The gross tumor volume was delineated by a physician in all 4D images. End-of-inspiration phase planning 4DFBCT was registered to the corresponding phase in weekly 4DCBCT images for day-to-day registrations. For phase-to-phase registration, the end-of-inspiration phase from each 4D image was registered to the end-of-expiration phase. Two DIR algorithms-small deformation inverse consistent linear elastic (SICLE) and Insight Toolkit diffeomorphic demons (DEMONS)-were evaluated. Physician-delineated contours were compared with the warped contours by using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), average symmetric distance, and false-positive and false-negative indices. The DIR results are compared with rigid registration of tumor.
Results:
For day-to-day registrations, the mean DSC was 0.75 ± 0.09 with SICLE, 0.70 ± 0.12 with DEMONS, 0.66 ± 0.12 with rigid-tumor registration, and 0.60 ± 0.14 with rigid-bone registration. Results were comparable to intraobserver variability calculated from phase-to-phase registrations as well as measured interobserver variation for 1 patient. SICLE and DEMONS, when compared with rigid-bone (4.1 mm) and rigid-tumor (3.6 mm) registration, respectively reduced the average symmetric distance to 2.6 and 3.3 mm. On average, SICLE and DEMONS increased the DSC to 0.80 and 0.79, respectively, compared with rigid-tumor (0.78) registrations for 4DCBCT phase-to-phase registrations.
Conclusions:
Deformable image registration achieved comparable accuracy to reported interobserver delineation variability and higher accuracy than rigid-tumor registration. Deformable image registration performance varied with the algorithm and the patient.
