SU‐E‐T‐278

Volume Based Comparison of Deformable Image Registration Algorithms Using Spatial Discrepancy Volume Histograms

M. Fatyga, Nesrin Dogan, K. Wijesooriya, W. Sleeman, B. Zhang, G. Christensen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: Accurate Deformable Image Registration (DIR) algorithms are essential to clinical implementation of adaptive planning strategies hence finding validation strategies for DIR algorithms remains a pressing concern. Most validation efforts are based on contour or landmark tracking, thus sampling the Deformable Vector Field (DVF) relatively sparsely. The primary purpose of this work is to assess interchangeability of DIR algorithms in dose accumulation, and assess if contour based methods are sufficient to validate the equivalence of DIR algorithms. Methods: We registered peak inhale and peak exhale phases of thirteen lung patients using three DIR algorithms. The DVF maps were pairwise compared through voxel‐by‐voxel subtraction of vector fields. The vector difference maps were analyzed by building volume histograms on regions of interest. This method of analysis is directly relevant to the Dose Volume Histogram accumulation, as vector difference between the maps will be translated into a distance between dose interpolation points. We further compared Jacobian distributions for the three maps, as local derivatives of DVF maps would be important to any algorithm that attempts local density corrections. We performed contour based comparison of the three algorithms, to connect this validation method to prior work. Results: The volume histogram analysis shows that differences between DVFs in 2% tails of volume histogram are in the 1cm – 4cm range, although the contour‐based analysis using Dice's Similarity Coefficient (DSC) would suggest that the three algorithms are nearly equivalent. For most structures, spatial differences between maps are below 0.5cm over approximately 70% of structure volume, and exceed 0.5cm over the remainder. Jacobian distributions differ significantly, implying that local density corrections are strongly algorithm dependent. Conclusions: Differences between algorithms are potentially significant for dose accumulation, and such differences are not revealed by contour based comparisons.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Number of pages1
JournalMedical Physics
Volume38
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Lung

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

SU‐E‐T‐278 : Volume Based Comparison of Deformable Image Registration Algorithms Using Spatial Discrepancy Volume Histograms. / Fatyga, M.; Dogan, Nesrin; Wijesooriya, K.; Sleeman, W.; Zhang, B.; Christensen, G.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 38, No. 6, 2011.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a736f27a83124c71b0e2b017d7bfbd57,
title = "SU‐E‐T‐278: Volume Based Comparison of Deformable Image Registration Algorithms Using Spatial Discrepancy Volume Histograms",
abstract = "Purpose: Accurate Deformable Image Registration (DIR) algorithms are essential to clinical implementation of adaptive planning strategies hence finding validation strategies for DIR algorithms remains a pressing concern. Most validation efforts are based on contour or landmark tracking, thus sampling the Deformable Vector Field (DVF) relatively sparsely. The primary purpose of this work is to assess interchangeability of DIR algorithms in dose accumulation, and assess if contour based methods are sufficient to validate the equivalence of DIR algorithms. Methods: We registered peak inhale and peak exhale phases of thirteen lung patients using three DIR algorithms. The DVF maps were pairwise compared through voxel‐by‐voxel subtraction of vector fields. The vector difference maps were analyzed by building volume histograms on regions of interest. This method of analysis is directly relevant to the Dose Volume Histogram accumulation, as vector difference between the maps will be translated into a distance between dose interpolation points. We further compared Jacobian distributions for the three maps, as local derivatives of DVF maps would be important to any algorithm that attempts local density corrections. We performed contour based comparison of the three algorithms, to connect this validation method to prior work. Results: The volume histogram analysis shows that differences between DVFs in 2{\%} tails of volume histogram are in the 1cm – 4cm range, although the contour‐based analysis using Dice's Similarity Coefficient (DSC) would suggest that the three algorithms are nearly equivalent. For most structures, spatial differences between maps are below 0.5cm over approximately 70{\%} of structure volume, and exceed 0.5cm over the remainder. Jacobian distributions differ significantly, implying that local density corrections are strongly algorithm dependent. Conclusions: Differences between algorithms are potentially significant for dose accumulation, and such differences are not revealed by contour based comparisons.",
author = "M. Fatyga and Nesrin Dogan and K. Wijesooriya and W. Sleeman and B. Zhang and G. Christensen",
year = "2011",
doi = "10.1118/1.3612229",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "38",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐E‐T‐278

T2 - Volume Based Comparison of Deformable Image Registration Algorithms Using Spatial Discrepancy Volume Histograms

AU - Fatyga, M.

AU - Dogan, Nesrin

AU - Wijesooriya, K.

AU - Sleeman, W.

AU - Zhang, B.

AU - Christensen, G.

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - Purpose: Accurate Deformable Image Registration (DIR) algorithms are essential to clinical implementation of adaptive planning strategies hence finding validation strategies for DIR algorithms remains a pressing concern. Most validation efforts are based on contour or landmark tracking, thus sampling the Deformable Vector Field (DVF) relatively sparsely. The primary purpose of this work is to assess interchangeability of DIR algorithms in dose accumulation, and assess if contour based methods are sufficient to validate the equivalence of DIR algorithms. Methods: We registered peak inhale and peak exhale phases of thirteen lung patients using three DIR algorithms. The DVF maps were pairwise compared through voxel‐by‐voxel subtraction of vector fields. The vector difference maps were analyzed by building volume histograms on regions of interest. This method of analysis is directly relevant to the Dose Volume Histogram accumulation, as vector difference between the maps will be translated into a distance between dose interpolation points. We further compared Jacobian distributions for the three maps, as local derivatives of DVF maps would be important to any algorithm that attempts local density corrections. We performed contour based comparison of the three algorithms, to connect this validation method to prior work. Results: The volume histogram analysis shows that differences between DVFs in 2% tails of volume histogram are in the 1cm – 4cm range, although the contour‐based analysis using Dice's Similarity Coefficient (DSC) would suggest that the three algorithms are nearly equivalent. For most structures, spatial differences between maps are below 0.5cm over approximately 70% of structure volume, and exceed 0.5cm over the remainder. Jacobian distributions differ significantly, implying that local density corrections are strongly algorithm dependent. Conclusions: Differences between algorithms are potentially significant for dose accumulation, and such differences are not revealed by contour based comparisons.

AB - Purpose: Accurate Deformable Image Registration (DIR) algorithms are essential to clinical implementation of adaptive planning strategies hence finding validation strategies for DIR algorithms remains a pressing concern. Most validation efforts are based on contour or landmark tracking, thus sampling the Deformable Vector Field (DVF) relatively sparsely. The primary purpose of this work is to assess interchangeability of DIR algorithms in dose accumulation, and assess if contour based methods are sufficient to validate the equivalence of DIR algorithms. Methods: We registered peak inhale and peak exhale phases of thirteen lung patients using three DIR algorithms. The DVF maps were pairwise compared through voxel‐by‐voxel subtraction of vector fields. The vector difference maps were analyzed by building volume histograms on regions of interest. This method of analysis is directly relevant to the Dose Volume Histogram accumulation, as vector difference between the maps will be translated into a distance between dose interpolation points. We further compared Jacobian distributions for the three maps, as local derivatives of DVF maps would be important to any algorithm that attempts local density corrections. We performed contour based comparison of the three algorithms, to connect this validation method to prior work. Results: The volume histogram analysis shows that differences between DVFs in 2% tails of volume histogram are in the 1cm – 4cm range, although the contour‐based analysis using Dice's Similarity Coefficient (DSC) would suggest that the three algorithms are nearly equivalent. For most structures, spatial differences between maps are below 0.5cm over approximately 70% of structure volume, and exceed 0.5cm over the remainder. Jacobian distributions differ significantly, implying that local density corrections are strongly algorithm dependent. Conclusions: Differences between algorithms are potentially significant for dose accumulation, and such differences are not revealed by contour based comparisons.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024822540&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024822540&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.3612229

DO - 10.1118/1.3612229

M3 - Article

VL - 38

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -