Geometric and dosimetric accuracy of deformable image registration between average-intensity images for 4DCT-based adaptive radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer.

Abstract

PurposeRe‐planning for four‐dimensional computed tomography (4DCT)‐based lung adaptive radiotherapy commonly requires deformable dose mapping between the planning average‐intensity image (AVG) and the newly acquired AVG. However, such AVG‐AVG deformable image registration (DIR) lacks accuracy assessment. The current work quantified and compared geometric accuracies of AVG‐AVG DIR and corresponding phase‐phase DIRs, and subsequently investigated the clinical impact of such AVG‐AVG DIR on deformable dose mapping.Methods and MaterialsHybrid intensity‐based AVG‐AVG and phase‐phase DIRs were performed between the planning and mid‐treatment 4DCTs of 28 non‐small cell lung cancer patients. An automated landmark identification algorithm detected vessel bifurcation pairs in both lungs. Target registration error (TRE) of these landmark pairs was calculated for both DIR types. The correlation between TRE and respiratory‐induced landmark motion in the planning 4DCT was analyzed. Global and local dose metrics were used to assess the clinical implications of AVG‐AVG deformable dose mapping with both DIR types.ResultsTRE of AVG‐AVG and phase‐phase DIRs averaged 3.2 ± 1.0 and 2.6 ± 0.8 mm respectively (p < 0.001). Using AVG‐AVG DIR, TREs for landmarks with <10 mm motion averaged 2.9 ± 2.0 mm, compared to 3.1 ± 1.9 mm for the remaining landmarks (p < 0.01). Comparatively, no significant difference was demonstrated for phase‐phase DIRs. Dosimetrically, no significant difference in global dose metrics was observed between doses mapped with AVG‐AVG DIR and the phase‐phase DIR, but a positive linear relationship existed (p = 0.04) between the TRE of AVG‐AVG DIR and local dose difference.ConclusionsWhen the region of interest experiences <10 mm respiratory‐induced motion, AVG‐AVG DIR may provide sufficient geometric accuracy; conversely, extra attention is warranted, and phase‐phase DIR is recommended. Dosimetrically, the differences in geometric accuracy between AVG‐AVG and phase‐phase DIRs did not impact global lung‐based metrics. However, as more localized dose metrics are needed for toxicity assessment, phase‐phase DIR may be required as its lower mean TRE improved voxel‐based dosimetry.