We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The purpose of this study is to investigate quantitatively the correlation of displacement vector fields (DVFs) from different deformable image registration (DIR) algorithms to register images from helical computed tomography (HCT), axial computed tomography (ACT) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) with motion parameters.
Materials and methods:
CT images obtained from scanning of the mobile phantom were registered with the stationary CT images using four DIR algorithms from the DIRART software: Demons, Fast-Demons, Horn–Schunck and Lucas–Kanade. HCT, ACT and CBCT imaging techniques were used to image a mobile phantom, which included three targets with different sizes (small, medium and large) that were manufactured from a water-equivalent material and embedded in low-density foam to simulate lung lesions. The phantom was moved with controlled cyclic motion patterns where a range of motion amplitudes (0–20 mm) and frequencies (0·125–0·5 Hz) were used.
Results:
The DVF obtained from different algorithms correlated well with motion amplitudes applied on the mobile phantom for CBCT and HCT, where the maximal DVF increased linearly with the motion amplitudes of the mobile phantom. In ACT, the DVF correlated less with motion amplitudes where motion-induced strong image artefacts and the DIR algorithms were not able to deform the ACT image of the mobile targets to the stationary targets. Three DIR algorithms produce comparable values and patterns of the DVF for certain CT imaging modality. However, DVF from Fast-Demons deviated strongly from other algorithms at large motion amplitudes.
Conclusions:
The local DVFs provide direct quantitative values for the actual internal tumour shifts that can be used to determine margins for the internal target volume that consider tumour motion during treatment planning. Furthermore, the DVF distributions can be used to extract motion parameters such as motion amplitude that can be extracted from the maximal or minimal DVF calculated by the different DIR algorithms and used in the management of the patient motion.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.