Abstract:Purpose Kilovoltage cone beam computed tomography (kVCBCT)‐guided adaptive radiation therapy (ART) uses daily deformed CT (dCT), which is generated automatically through deformable registration methods. These registration methods may perform poorly in reproducing volumes of the target organ, rectum, and bladder during treatment. We analyzed the registration errors between the daily kVCBCTs and corresponding dCTs for these organs using the default optical flow algorithm and two registration procedures. We validated the effectiveness of these registration methods in replicating the geometry for dose calculation on kVCBCT for ART. Methods We evaluated three deformable image registration (DIR) methods to assess their registration accuracy and dose calculation effeciency in mapping target and critical organs. The DIR methods include (1) default intensity‐based deformable registration, (2) hybrid deformable registration, and (3) a two‐step deformable registration process. Each technique was applied to a computerized imaging reference system (CIRS) phantom (Model 062 M) and to five patients who received volumetric modulated arc therapy to the prostate. Registration accuracy was assessed using the 95% Hausdorff distance (HD95) and Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), and each method was compared with the intensity‐based registration method. The improvement in the dCT image quality of the CIRS phantom and five patients was assessed by comparing dCT with kVCBCT. Image quality quantitative metrics for the phantom included the signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR), uniformity, and contrast‐to‐noise ratio (CNR), whereas those for the patients included the mean absolute error (MAE), mean error, peak signal‐to‐noise ratio (PSNR), and structural similarity index measure (SSIM). To determine dose metric differences, we used a dose‐volume histogram (DVH) and 3.0%/0.3 mm gamma analysis to compare planning computed tomography (pCT) and kVCBCT recalculations with restimulated CT images used as a reference. Results The dCT images generated by the hybrid (dCTH) and two‐step (dCTC) registration methods resulted in significant improvements compared to kVCBCT in the phantom model. Specifically, the SNR improved by 107% and 107.2%, the uniformity improved by 90% and 75%, and the CNR improved by 212.2% and 225.6 for dCTH and dCTC methods, respectively. For the patient images, the MAEs improved by 98% and 94%, the PSNRs improved by 16.3% and 22.9%, and the SSIMs improved by 1% and 1% in the dCTH and dCTC methods, respectively. For the geometric evaluation, only the two‐step registration method improved registration accuracy. The dCTH method yielded an average HD95 of 12 mm and average DSC of 0.73, whereas dCTC yielded an average HD95 of 2.9 mm and average DSC of 0.902. The DVH showed that the dCTC‐based dose calculations differed by 95% at all points, whereas they were <95% for kVCBCT‐based treatment plans. Conclusion The two‐step registration method outperforms the intensity‐based and hybrid registration methods. While the hybrid and two‐step‐based methods improved the image quality of kVCBCT in a linear accelerator, only the two‐step method improved the registration accuracy of the corresponding structures among the pCT and kVCBCT datasets. A two‐step registration process is recommended for applying kVCBCT to ART, which achieves better registration accuracy for local and global image structures. This method appears to be beneficial for radiotherapy dose calculation in patients with pelvic cancer.

Characterization of Interfraction Changes and Their Dosimetric Effects for Prostate Radiotherapy Using Daily Kvct

Characterizing interfraction variations and their dosimetric effects in prostate cancer radiotherapy.

Volumetric and Dosimetric Variations in Radiation Treatment Planning Using CT Images Based on Different Reconstructed Field-of-view

Evaluation Of The Dosimetric Impact Of Interfractional Anatomical Variations On Prostate Proton Therapy Using Daily In-Room Ct Images

Impact Of Interfractional Motion On Hypofractionated Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy And Vmat Delivery For Prostate Cancer

Hypofractionated Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Dose Delivery Uncertainty Due to Interfractional Motion.

Accumulating daily-varied dose distributions of prostate radiation therapy with soft-tissue-based kV CT guidance.

Dosimetric Benefit of Implanted Marker-Based Cbct Setup for Definitive Prostatic Radiotherapy

Evaluation of online/offline image guidance/adaptation approaches for prostate cancer radiation therapy.

On-line daily plan optimization combined with a virtual couch shift procedure to address intrafraction motion in prostate magnetic resonance guided radiotherapy

Optimizing CT Acquisition for Prostate Cancer Radiation Treatment Planning and Delivery

Deformation Estimation and Analysis for Adaptive Radiation Therapy

Ultra-hypofractionated prostate cancer radiotherapy: Dosimetric impact of real-time intrafraction prostate motion and daily anatomical changes

Independent Interfraction Motion And Deformation Of Pelvic Nodes And Prostate In Image Guided Concurrent Irradiation Of Prostate And Pelvic Nodes

A "rolling average" multiple adaptive planning method to compensate for target volume changes in image-guided radiotherapy of prostate cancer

Characterization and Management of Interfractional Anatomic Changes for Pancreatic Cancer Radiotherapy

Quantification and predictors of prostate position variability in 50 patients evaluated with multiple CT scans during conformal radiotherapy

Evaluation of the geometric and dosimetric accuracies of deformable image registration of targets and critical organs in prostate CBCT‐guided adaptive radiotherapy

Effects of interfractional motion and anatomic changes on proton therapy dose distribution in lung cancer.

Inter-fractional and Intra-Fractional Errors in Prostate Cancer Treated by TomoTherapy System

Intrafractional Prostate Motion and Dose Variation During Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer Using 4D-TPUS