Date post: | 20-Jan-2019 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | nguyenmien |
View: | 226 times |
Download: | 0 times |
1
Image registration, deformation, and enhanced contouring for radiotherapy
with MIM MaestroTM
Debra H. Brinkmann, Ph.D., Mayo Clinic Rochester, MN
Jon Piper, MIM Software Inc., Cleveland, OH
Disclosure
• JP is a developer, employee, and has ownership interest in MIM Software Inc., Cleveland, OH
Outline
• Introduction/Overview of MIM MaestroTM JP
• Clinical Examples DHB / Technical features JP– Image Registration
• Rigid• Deformable
– Enhanced Contouring• Adaptive Contouring • PET segmentation tools• Atlas-based Segmentation
• Future Directions of MIM MaestroTM JP
Introduction / OverviewMIM Maestro 5.1
2
• Evolution: Diagnostic tools redesigned for Radiation
Oncology
• Deformable tools initially developed in 2007
• Contouring, registration, fusion, dose review
MIM Maesro Introduction
Image registration: Rigid
Image Registration: Rigid
Workflow• Select image series• Select workflow &
follow instructions• Registration options:
– Assisted Alignment– Box-based Alignment– Contour-based
Alignment– Manual– View/edit translations
/rotations• Review match• Save as reformatted
images
blending
spyglass
Image Registration: Rigid
Clinical Examples – MR/CTplan
3
Image Registration: Rigid
Clinical Examples – MR/CTplan
Image Registration: Rigid
Clinical Examples – MR/CTplan
Image Registration: Rigid
Clinical Examples – MR/CTplan
assisted
alignment
box-based
alignment
reset translations
manually move close
define ROI for box-based alignment
resulting registration
Image Registration: Rigid
Clinical Examples – initial alignment off
4
Image Registration: Rigid
Tips from clinical experience
• Use workflows– Customizable instructions
– Streamlines process
– Consistent output
• Use box-based/contour-based alignment– Focuses/Improves registration over region of interest
• If initial match is strange– Reset shift
– Get close with manual tools
– Then re-run alignment method
Image Registration: Rigid
Tips from clinical experience
• For multiple MR to CT fusion, assign best anatomical MR series as first series to match – Applies match to all series from same exam
• opportunity to adjust if needed
– Pay attention – assignment order currently flips around each time you enter workflow
• Orientation issues resolved in 5.1.2 beta– Trouble with other systems interpreting orientation of
reformatted FFS matched to HFS
• Assisted alignment: uses field of view displayed
• Contour/Box-based alignment: uses only data inside
• All algorithms employ nMI
• Point-based alignment: for fiducials, but beware
Rigid registration
• Evaluate/adjust registration in all planes
• Be careful when using rigid alignment to solve a
deformable problem• Select rigid surrogates carefully: bones, small structures
• Multiple locally rigid registrations approximate deformation
• Remember MIM uses displayed contrast for rigid
alignments
Rigid registration
5
Image registration: Deformable
Image Registration: Deformable
Workflow• Initial rigid alignment
to get close• Deformable CT-CT
alignment – Uses entire overlapping
volume
• Apply deformation to other series (PET, SPECT, RTSS, RTDose)
• Evaluation(voxel-to-voxel)
• Save as reformatted images
Image Registration: Deformable
Clinical Examples – PET/CTnm/CTplan
Image Registration: Deformable
Clinical Examples – PET/CTnm/CTplan
6
Image Registration: Deformable
Tips from clinical experience
• We tend to try “regional” rigid registration first (in case that is sufficient)
• Results can be strange - less so in 5.1
• During initial rigid alignment – focus on ROI (only input the user has control over)
• Be aware of potential offset between PET/SPECT and “inherently registered” CT
• Wishlist: evaluation map (where was deformation
significant)
Methods
• Constrained Intensity-based free-
form (DOF: millions)
• Validation•Correlation
•Recover known deformations
•Consistency (forward and reverse)
Results
• Correlation: on the order of 1.4mm error
• Phantom: 1.1mm mean error
• Consistency: 3.1mm mean
concatenated error
Evaluation of an Intensity-Based Free-form
Deformable Registration AlgorithmJW Piper1,2
1MIM Software Inc, 2Wake Forest University
PET/CT Deformable Registration
PET/CT Arms Down - SIM CT Arms Up
PET/CT Deformable Registration
PET/CT Arms Down - SIM CT Arms Up
7
Methods
• 15 patients in different positions
(4 BOT, 5 Tonsil, 6 Larynx)
• GTV definition•Manual correlation (gold standard)
•Rigid registration
•Deformable registration
Results
• Rigid errors: 7.81 (5.36) mm
• Deformable errors: 2.63 (2.76) mm
Utility of Deformable PET Fusion in Elucidating
GTV in Head & Neck MalignanciesSE Fogh1, GJ Kubicek1, R Axelrod1, WM Keane1, JW Piper2,3, Y Xiao1, M Machtay1,
1Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, 2MIM Software Inc, 3Wake Forest University
• Non-correspondences
• Point-correlation is important to evaluation
• PET/CT deformation in the thorax and abdomen•PET/CT is 3D CT but 4D PET
•Best will be 4D PET/CT or use 4DCT for planning with careful
selection of phase for deformation
Deformable PET/CT
Enhanced Contouring: Adaptive Contouring
Enhanced Contouring: Adaptive Re-contouring
Workflow• Input: original CT,
original RTSS, new CT• Initial rigid alignment
to get close• Deformable CT-CT
alignment• Apply deformation
to original structures• Save deformed
structures
8
Enhanced Contouring: Adaptive Re-contouring
Clinical Examples – 5.1 vs. 4.1
Version
5.1.2beta
Extra
smoothing?
Version
4.1
Planning
CT
CBCT
week1
Enhanced Contouring: Adaptive Re-contouring
Clinical Examples – CBCT changes
CBCT
week5
CBCT
week1
Enhanced Contouring: Adaptive Re-contouring
Clinical Examples – Replan
Defining ROI for box-based
alignment to update initial
rigid registration over area of
interest (tongue)
Bolus masked out
Rigid
Deformable
Enhanced Contouring: Adaptive Re-contouring
Tips from clinical experience
• During initial rigid alignment – focus on ROI
• Have user recreate PTV from deformed GTV/CTV
• Make sure users save structures to NEW CT
• Works well for head and neck, CNS…(Can use mask function as a workaround e.g. if bolus in only
one scan)
• Works well for lung CBCT (using first CBCT as reference)
9
Enhanced Contouring: Adaptive Re-contouring
Tips from clinical experience
• Does not work well for abdomen if contrast present in only one scan
• Do not use deformable dose currently– Have included relevant isodose lines as contours– RTDose output (new in MIM 5) is 16bit vs 32bit needed by our
TPS – should be available in MIM 5.2
• We do not use clinically yet, but functionality available for propagating contours on 4DCT phases to generate ITV, play movie loops…
Deformable Adaptive Re-contouring
• Automatically deforms structure sets to match anatomy
in replanning CT
• Contours should be edited as necessary
• Data from Tsuji, Hwang, and Weinberg* indicate•No significant impact on dose between manual and adaptive OAR
•CTVs are significantly different due to changed treatment strategy
*Tsuji SY, Hwang A, Weinberg V, et al. Dosimetric Evaluation of Automatic Segmentation for Adaptive IMRT for Head-and-Neck
Cancer. IJROBP 2010;77(3):707-714.
Methods
• 2 CTs obtained for 7 H&N patients
• Contouring methods
•Manually generated contours
•Automatic adaptive re-contouring
• Modification of automatic contours
Results
• 68-86% reduction in contouring time
• Difference Automatic to Modified less than Manual to Modified (p < 0.01)
• Automatic contours of iso-volumic regions (cord, brainstem, etc.) more consistent with original contours than manual (p < 0.05)
Evaluation of a Deformable Re-Contouring
Method for Adaptive TherapyRC Fragoso1, JW Piper2,3, AS Nelson2, AS Harrison1, M Machtay2, Y Xiao1,
1Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, 2MIM Software Inc, 4Wake Forest University
Deformable Dose Accumulation
Old CT
Original
dose
New CT
Deformed
dose
10
Deformable Dose Accumulation
Added
dose
New
dose
Deformed
old dose
Deformable Dose Accumulation
• Dose accumulation commonly effects treatment plan for
recurrence
• Accurate deformable registration is needed because of
changes in anatomy
Methods• Acquire CT (CTr) & CBCT within 1 day
• Deform original CT to CBCT (CTd)
• Compare dose from CTd and CBCT to CTr
Results• Reduction in error using CTd compared
with CBCT
• PTV D95: 0.60% 0.40%
• PTV Dmean: 0.85% 0.47%
• Cord Dmax: 0.45% 1.29%
• Brainstem Dmax: 6.41% 0.03%
• R Parotid D50: 11.40% 1.06%
• L Parotid D50: 26.20% 2.57%
• Mandible Dmax: 0.90% 1.84%
CBCT for Dose Tracking in HNCK Hu1, A Surapeneni1, J Dolan1, JW Piper2,3, A Neff1, LB Harrison1
1Beth Israel Medical Center, 2MIM Software Inc, 3Wake Forest University
Deformation for Tumor Response
11
• Deformably propagate contours from one phase to all
phases for more accurate ITV generation
• Dose, contours, and fusions on 4D cine
• 4D DVH
• The deformable algorithm has a broad capture range
4DCT 4DCT Deformable ITV Generation
• Adaptive re-contouring: some physicians like to keep
targets large even if the anatomy is shrinking. • Use rigid transfer for targets and deformable for nodes and OARs
• Contrast differences in CT are challenging for intensity-
based algorithms
• CBCT to CBCT is usually fine. CBCT to simCT is more
variable• Generally fine for correcting HU for dose calculation
• Recent reconstruction or hardware produces more consistent results
• Calibrate the HU on your OBI - or use our correction tools
• Use first fraction CBCT as your reference
Where to be Careful
Enhanced Contouring: PET segmentation tools
12
Enhanced Contouring: PET segmentation tools
Workflow• Select desired tool
– % threshold– SUV– PET Edge
• Set desired value (%, SUV)
• Click and drag to define ROI to search for %, SUV or edge
Enhanced Contouring: PET segmentation tools
Examples – Segmentation Tools
% threshold
absolute
threshold
PET Edge
PET Edge
defined in each
plane gives
results within
1-2cc
Different
thresholds
Identifying most
active region
Enhanced Contouring: PET segmentation tools
Clinical Examples – SPECT/CT
Plan CT
SPECT/CT
Enhanced Contouring: PET segmentation tools
Tips from clinical experience
• PET Edge can be used with other modalities
13
PET Tumor Segmentation
Challenge:
Accurate segmentation of PET GTV• Manual contouring
• Subject to contrast/window/level settings
• Threshold-based contouring• Small tumors
• Low activity tumors
• Variable activity tumors
• Variable background activity
Solution:
Gradient-based PET tumor segmentation• Image processing algorithm segments using maximum spatial
gradients
• Accurate, robust, and reproducible
PET Edge
Monte Carlo Lung PhantomLung tumors were simulated in a Monte Carlo Zubal phantom
at the University of Chicago,Med Phys 2008:35:3331-
3342
PET Tumor Segmentation
Methods
• 31 Monte Carlo simulated tumors
• Contouring methods
•Gradient-based method
•15-50% of max in 5% increments
Results• Mean absolute % error in volume
•Gradient: 11.0% (SD: 12%)
•25% thresh: 17.5% (SD: 29%)
• Slope of the best fit line
• Gradient: 1.03
• 15% thresh: 0.93
• 25% thresh: 0.77
• 35% thresh: 0.64
• 45% thresh: 0.44
PET Tumor Segmentation: Validation of a
Gradient-Based Method Using a NSCLC PhantomAD Nelson1, KD Brockway1, AS Nelson1, JW Piper1,2
1MIM Software Inc, 2Wake Forest University
14
PET Tumor Segmentation: Multi-Observer
Validation Using a NSCLC PET Phantom
Methods• 31 MC simulated tumors
• 7 observers (3 rad, 4 RO)
• Contouring methods
•Gradient-based method
•25-50% of max
•Manual contouring
Results• Mean absolute % error in volume
•Gradient 11.0% (SD: 12%)
•25% thresh: 17.5% (SD: 29%)
• Mean absolute % error in volume
•p < 0.01 gradient vs MC or 25% threshold
AS Nelson1, M Werner-Wasik2, W Choi3, Y Arai4, P Faulhaber5,, P Kang3, F Almeida6, N Ohri2, JW Piper1, AD Nelson1
1MIM Software Inc., 2Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, 3Beth Israel Medical Center, 4University of Pittsburgh Medical Center,5University Hospitals Case Medical Center, 6University of Arizona Health Systems
Pathologic Correlation of PET-CT Based Auto
Contouring for Radiation Planning in Lung CancerSE Fogh1, J Kannarkatt1, A Farach1, C Intenzo4, R Axelrod2, P McCue3, AS Nelson5, M Warner-Wasik1
Departments of 1Radiation Oncology, 2Medical Oncology, 3Pathology, 4Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University, 5MIM Software Inc
Methods• 18 PET or PET/CT and lobectomy
• Max resected tumor diameter vs Max
dimension of contour
• PET Edge
• 34% of Max Threshold
Results• Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient
•PET Edge: 0.72
•34% thresh: 0.08
• Check all three planes to verify you're starting close to
the center if the target
• Targets with funny shapes may require multiple passes
with PET Edge
• Contrast, contrast, contrast
• Clinical decision rests with the physician
PET Edge
Enhanced Contouring: Atlas-based segmentation
15
Enhanced Contouring: Atlas-based segmentation
Workflow• Input: original CT, original
RTSS, new CT
• Select range (sup-inf)
• Select filter parameters for atlas subjects
• Select desired contours
• After best-match is found, select any additional contours to transfer
• Save deformed structures under the new CT
Enhanced Contouring: Atlas-based segmentation
Example – with atlas built from cases
Enhanced Contouring: Atlas-based segmentation
Tips from clinical experience
• Prior to building an atlas with input from multiple users, take time up front to standardize contours
• Anticipate co-pilot contouring tool will facilitate manageable editing for clinical use
Methods
• OPX (6), NPX (3), LAX (3)
• Comparison
•(A) Resident editing atlas contours
•(B) Atlas instead of resident
• Attending edits resident/atlas contours
Results
• 68% reduction in contouring time (A)
• 87% reduction in contouring time (B)
• Atlas contours saved as much time as resident
contours (B)
Multi-institutional Experience with
Atlas-Based Segmentation in Head and Neck IMRTK Hu1, A Lin2, A Young2, G Kubicek1, JW Piper3,4, AS Nelson3, J Dolan1, R Masino1, M Machtay2
1Beth Israel Medical Center, 2Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, 3MIM Software Inc, 4Wake Forest University
16
Methods
• 98 patient atlas
• Comparison between
• Resident Attending
• Atlas Resident Attending
Results• 46% reduction in contouring time
• 47% for resident
• 36% for attending
• 54% for femurs
• 46% for prostate
Atlas-Based Segmentation in Prostate IMRT:
Time-savings in the Clinical WorkflowA Lin1, G Kubicek1, JW Piper2,3, AS Nelson2, AP Dicker1, RK Valicenti1
1Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, 2MIM Software Inc, 3Wake Forest University
• 45% for bladder
• 35% for rectum
MIM Auto-contouring Tools
• Slice-to-slice contour deformation
• Re-shapes contour based on underlying image
• Works on any (anatomical) modality and in any plane
• Works on any contour
• Edit atlas contours or contour from scratch
• It isn’t auto... yet. Verify and edit the contours
Auto-contouring
• Rigid alignment first guess improvements for small FOV
• Major performance enhancement for deformable
registration
• Continued improvements to the deformable algorithms• Encouraged to QA versions of MIM with known data
• Contour CoPilot is still in its infancy
• 4D Dose accumulation
• Ability to limit and influence the registration
• MR/CT deformable registration... not yet.
• Session Save
Future enhancements