PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to verify the possibility of summing the dose distributions of combined radiotherapeutic treatment of cervical cancer using the extended Lucas-Kanade algorithm for deformable image registration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: First, a deformable registration of planning computed tomography images for the external radiotherapy and brachytherapy treatment of 10 patients with different parameter settings of the Lucas-Kanade algorithm was performed. By evaluating the registered data using landmarks distance, root mean square error of Hounsfield units and 2D gamma analysis, the optimal parameter values were found. Next, with another group of 10 patients, the accuracy of the dose mapping of the optimized Lucas-Kanade algorithm was assessed and compared with Horn-Schunck and modified Demons algorithms using dose differences at landmarks. RESULTS: The best results of the Lucas-Kanade deformable registration were achieved for two pyramid levels in combination with a window size of 3 voxels. With this registration setting, the average landmarks distance was 2.35 mm, the RMSE was the smallest and the average gamma score reached a value of 86.7%. The mean dose difference at the landmarks after mapping the external radiotherapy and brachytherapy dose distributions was 1.33 Gy. A statistically significant difference was observed on comparing the Lucas-Kanade method with the Horn-Schunck and Demons algorithms, where after the deformable registration, the average difference in dose was 1.60 Gy (P-value: 0.0055) and 1.69 Gy (P-value: 0.0012), respectively. CONCLUSION: Lucas-Kanade deformable registration can lead to a more accurate model of dose accumulation and provide a more realistic idea of the dose distribution.

Department of Medical Physics and Radiation Protection University Hospital Olomouc Czech Republic

Department of Nuclear Medicine University Hospital Olomouc Czech Republic

Department of Oncology University Hospital Olomouc Czech Republic

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Tanderup K, Nielsen SK, Nyvang G‐B, et al. From point A to the sculpted pear: MR image guidance significantly improves tumour dose and sparing of organs at risk in brachytherapy of cervical cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2010;94:173–180. PubMed

ICRU. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements . Prescribing, recording and reporting brachytherapy for cancer of the cervix, ICRU Report 89, J ICRU. 2016;13. PubMed

Andersen ES, Noe KØ, Sørensen TS, et al. Simple DVH parameter addition as compared to deformable registration for bladder dose accumulation in cervix cancer brachytherapy. Radiother Oncol. 2013;107:52–57. PubMed

Sun B, Yang D, Esthappan J, et al. Three‐dimensional dose accumulation in pseudo‐split‐field IMRT and brachytherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer. Brachytherapy. 2015;14:481–489. PubMed

Bentzen SM, Dörr W, Gahbauer R, et al. Bioeffect modeling and equieffective dose concepts in radiation oncology ‐terminology, quantities and units. Radiother Oncol. 2012;105:266–268. PubMed

Moulton CR, House MJ, Lye V, et al. Registering prostate external beam radiotherapy with boost form high‐dose‐rate brachytherapy: a comparative evaluation of deformable registration algorithms. Radiat Oncol. 2015;10:254. PubMed PMC

Kadoya N, Fujito Y, Katsuta Y, et al, Evaluation of various deformable image registration algorithm for thoracic images. J Radiat Res. 2014;55:175–182. PubMed PMC

Brock K. Results of a Multi‐Institution Deformable Registration Accuracy Study (MIDRAS). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76:583–596. PubMed

Kirby N, Chuang C, Ueda U, Pouliot J. The need for application‐based adaptation of deformable image registration. Med Phys. 2013;40:011702. PubMed

Yeo UJ, Supple JR, Taylor ML, Smith R, Kron T, Franich RD. Performance of 12 DIR algorithms in low‐contrast regions for mass and density conserving deformation. Med Phys. 2013;40:101701. PubMed

Roth S, Black MJ. On the spatial statistics of optical flow. Int J Comput Vision. 2007;74:33–50.

Lucas BD, Kanade T. An iterative image registration technique with an application to stereo vision. In: IEEE international joint conference on artificial intelligence, Vancouver, 1981; 674–679.

Bruhn A, Weickert J, Schnorr CH. Lucas/Kanade Meets Horn/Schunck: Combining local and global optic flow methods. Int J Comput Vision. 2005;61:211–231.

Tarasenko V, Park D‐W. Detection and tracking over image pyramids using Lucas and Kanade algorithm. Int J Appl Eng Res, 2016, 11.

Weistrand O, Svensson S. The ANACONDA algorithm for deformable image registration in radiotherapy. Med Phys. 2015;42:40–53. PubMed

Varadhan R, Karangelis G, Krishnan K, Hui S. A framework for deformable image registration validation in radiotherapy clinical applications. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2013;14:4066. PubMed PMC

Low DA, Harms WB, Mutic S, Purdy JA. A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. Med Phys. 1998;25:656–661. PubMed

Depuydt T, Van Esch A, Huyskens DP. A quantitative evaluation of IMRT dose distributions: refinement and clinical assessment of the gamma evaluation. Radiother Oncol. 2002;62:309–319. PubMed

Yang D, Brame S, El Naqa I, et al. Technical Note: dirart – A software suite for deformable image registration and adaptive radiotherapy research. Med Phys. 2011;38:67–77. PubMed PMC

Yeo UJ, Taylor ML, Supple JR, et al. Is it sensible to "deform" dose? 3D experimental validation of dose‐warping. Med Phys. 2012;39:5065–5072. PubMed

Potter R, Haie‐Meder C, Limbergen EV, et al. Recommendations from gynaecological (GYN) GEC ESTRO working group (II): Concepts and terms in 3D image‐based treatment planning in cervix cancer brachytherapy,‐3D dose volume parameters and aspects of 3D image‐based anatomy, radiation physics, radiobiology. Radiother Oncol. 2006;78:67–77. PubMed

Zakariaee R, Hamarneh G, Brown CJ, Gaudet M, Aquino‐Parsons C, Spadinger I. Bladder accumulated dose in image‐guided high‐dose‐rate brachytherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer and its relation to urinary toxicity. Phys Med Biol. 2016;61:8408–8424. PubMed