4.4 Article

An evaluation of four CT-MRI co-registration techniques for radiotherapy treatment planning of prone rectal cancer patients

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
Volume 85, Issue 1009, Pages 61-68

Publisher

BRITISH INST RADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1259/bjr/11855927

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Leeds Teaching Hospitals Charitable Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: MRI is the preferred staging modality for rectal carcinoma patients. This work assesses the CT-MRI co-registration accuracy of four commercial rigid-body techniques for external beam radiotherapy treatment planning for patients treated in the prone position without fiducial markers. Methods: 17 patients with biopsy-proven rectal carcinoma were scanned with CT and MRI in the prone position without the use of fiducial markers. A reference co-registration was performed by consensus of a radiologist and two physicists. This was compared with two automated and two manual techniques on two separate treatment planning systems. Accuracy and reproducibility were analysed using a measure of target registration error (TRE) that was based on the average distance of the mis-registration between vertices of the clinically relevant gross tumour volume as delineated on the CT image. Results: An automated technique achieved the greatest accuracy, with a TRE of 2.3 mm. Both automated techniques demonstrated perfect reproducibility and were significantly faster than their manual counterparts. There was a significant difference in TRE between registrations performed on the two planning systems, but there were no significant differences between the manual and automated techniques. Conclusion: For patients with rectal cancer, MRI acquired in the prone treatment position without fiducial markers can be accurately registered with planning CT. An automated registration technique offered a fast and accurate solution with associated uncertainties within acceptable treatment planning limits.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available