Login
Register
Reset Password
Publish & Distribute
Publishing Solutions
Distribution Solutions
Subjects
Architecture and Design
Arts
Business and Economics
Chemistry
Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
Computer Sciences
Cultural Studies
Engineering
General Interest
Geosciences
History
Industrial Chemistry
Jewish Studies
Law
Library and Information Science, Book Studies
Life Sciences
Linguistics and Semiotics
Literary Studies
Materials Sciences
Mathematics
Medicine
Music
Pharmacy
Philosophy
Physics
Social Sciences
Sports and Recreation
Theology and Religion
Publications
Journals
Books
Proceedings
Publishers
Blog
Contact
Search
EUR
USD
GBP
English
English
Deutsch
Polski
Español
Français
Italiano
Cart
Home
Journals
Radiology and Oncology
Volume 51 (2017): Issue 4 (December 2017)
Open Access
Evaluation of deformable image registration (DIR) methods for dose accumulation in nasopharyngeal cancer patients during radiotherapy
Wannapha Nobnop
Wannapha Nobnop
,
Imjai Chitapanarux
Imjai Chitapanarux
,
Hudsaleark Neamin
Hudsaleark Neamin
,
Somsak Wanwilairat
Somsak Wanwilairat
,
Vicharn Lorvidhaya
Vicharn Lorvidhaya
and
Taweap Sanghangthum
Taweap Sanghangthum
| Sep 15, 2017
Radiology and Oncology
Volume 51 (2017): Issue 4 (December 2017)
About this article
Previous Article
Next Article
Abstract
Article
Figures & Tables
References
Authors
Articles in this Issue
Preview
PDF
Cite
Share
Article Category:
Research Article
Published Online:
Sep 15, 2017
Page range:
438 - 446
Received:
Jun 03, 2017
Accepted:
Jul 16, 2017
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1515/raon-2017-0033
© 2017 Wannapha Nobnop, Imjai Chitapanarux, Hudsaleark Neamin, Somsak Wanwilairat, Vicharn Lorvidhaya, Taweap Sanghangthum
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Figure 1
The diagram of the study workflow for dose accumulation and dose comparison.
Figure 2
The percent ratio to the volume at the initial treatment planning of (A) gross target volume GTV, (B) clinical target volume CTV, (C) right parotid gland, and (D) left parotid gland.
Figure 3
Histogram of (A) the dice similarity coefficients (DSC) for all of the targets and organs at risk and (B) the inverse consistency error (ICE) in each treatment week and by asymmetric Horn and Schunck (AsyHS), asymmetric demon (AsyDM), symmetric Horn and Schunck (SymHS), and symmetric demon (SymDM) deformable image registration (DIR) methods.
Figure 4
The 1st day MVCT image showing the original bilateral parotid gland (A) and the MVCT image at the 31st fraction showing the automatic deformed contour (B) from the AsyDM method. The initial planned dose distribution on the 1st day MVCT image (C) which was used to compare with the accumulated dose distribution at the end of the treatment (D).
Figure 5
Cumulative dose comparison, calculated by the asymmetric Horn and Schunck (AsyHS), asymmetric demon (AsyDM), symmetric Horn and Schunck (SymHS), and symmetric demon (SymDM) deformable registration methods of gross tumour volume (GTV) for (A) median dose, D50(B) near-minimum dose, D98 and (C) near-maximum dose, D2 and clinical tumour volume (CTV) for (D) median dose, D50(E) near-minimum dose, D98, and (F) near-maximum dose, D2. The reference (Ref) accumulated dose was computed by summing the weekly doses corresponding to the weekly MVCTs defined by the radiation oncologist.
Figure 6
Cumulative dose comparison, calculated from the asymmetric Horn and Schunck (AsyHS), asymmetric demon (AsyDM), symmetric Horn and Schunck (SymHS), and symmetric demon (SymDM) deformable registration methods in mean dose, Dmean, of (A) right parotid gland and (B) left parotid gland, and near-maximum dose, D2, of (C) spinal cord.
Figure 7
Cumulative dose comparison, derived from helical tomotherapy planned adaptive software (HT) and DIRART software in median dose, D50, of (A) right parotid gland and (B) left parotid gland.
Preview