Identification and separation of rigid image registration error sources, demonstrated for MRI-only image guided radiotherapy

Cone beam computed tomography image guidance within a magnetic resonance imaging-only planning workflow

Background and purpose

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)-only planning workflows offer many advantages but raises challenges regarding image guidance. The study aimed to assess the viability of MRI to Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) based image guidance for MRI-only planning treatment workflows.

Materials and methods

An MRI matching training package was developed. Ten radiation therapists, with a range of clinical image guidance experience and experience with MRI, completed the training package prior to matching assessment. The matching assessment was performed on four match regions: prostate gold seed, prostate soft tissue, rectum/anal canal and gynaecological. Each match region consisted of five patients, with three CBCTs per patient, resulting in fifteen CBCTs for each match region. The ten radiation therapists performed the CBCT image matching to CT and to MRI for all regions and recorded the match values.

Results

The median inter-observer variation for MRI-CBCT matching and CT-CBCT matching for all regions were within 2 mm and 1 degree. There was no statistically significant association in the inter-observer variation in mean match values and radiation therapist image guidance experience levels. There was no statistically significant association in inter-observer variation in mean match values for MRI experience levels for prostate soft tissue and gynaecological match regions, while there was a statistically significant difference for prostate gold seed and rectum match regions.

Conclusion

The results of this study support the concept that with focussed training, an MRI to CBCT image guidance approach can be successfully implemented in a clinical planning workflow.

Estimating medical image registration error and confidence: A taxonomy and scoping review

Given that image registration is a fundamental and ubiquitous task in both clinical and research domains of the medical field, errors in registration can have serious consequences. Since such errors can mislead clinicians during image-guided therapies or bias the results of a downstream analysis, methods to estimate registration error are becoming more popular. To give structure to this new heterogenous field we developed a taxonomy and performed a scoping review of methods that quantitatively and automatically provide a dense estimation of registration error. The taxonomy breaks down error estimation methods into Approach (Image- or Transformation-based), Framework (Machine Learning or Direct) and Measurement (error or confidence) components. Following the PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews, the 570 records found were reduced to twenty studies that met inclusion criteria, which were then reviewed according to the proposed taxonomy. Trends in the field, advantages and disadvantages of the methods, and potential sources of bias are also discussed. We provide suggestions for best practices and identify areas of future research.

An Orthopedic Auxiliary Diagnosis System Based on Image Recognition Technology

There are many kinds of orthopedic diseases with complex professional background, and it is easy to miss diagnosis and misdiagnosis. The computer-aided diagnosis system of orthopedic diseases based on the key technology of medical image processing can locate and display the lesion location area by visualization, measuring and providing disease diagnosis indexes. It is of great significance to assist orthopedic doctors to diagnose orthopedic diseases from the perspective of visual vision and quantitative indicators, which can improve the diagnosis rate and accuracy of orthopedic diseases, reduce the pain of patients, and shorten the treatment time of diseases. To solve the problem of possible spatial inconsistency of medical images of orthopedic diseases, we propose an image registration method based on volume feature point selection and Powell. Through the linear search strategy of golden section method and Powell algorithm optimization, the best spatial transformation parameters are found, which maximizes the normalized mutual information between images to be registered, thus ensuring the consistency of two-dimensional spatial positions. According to the proposed algorithm, a computer-aided diagnosis system of orthopedic diseases is developed and designed independently. The system consists of five modules, which can complete many functions such as medical image input and output, algorithm processing, and effect display. The experimental results show that the system developed in this paper has good results in cartilage tissue segmentation, bone and urate agglomeration segmentation, urate agglomeration artifact removal, two-dimensional and three-dimensional image registration, and visualization. The system can be applied to clinical gout and cartilage defect diagnosis and evaluation, providing sufficient basis to assist doctors in making diagnosis decisions.

Patient position verification in magnetic-resonance imaging only radiotherapy of anal and rectal cancers

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Magnetic resonance (MR)-only treatment pathways require either the MR-simulation or synthetic-computed tomography (sCT) as an alternative reference image for cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) patient position verification. This study assessed whether using T2 MR or sCT as CBCT reference images introduces systematic registration errors as compared to CT for anal and rectal cancers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 32 patients (18 rectum,14 anus) received pre-treatment CT- and T2 MR- simulation. Routine treatment CBCTs were acquired. sCTs were generated using a validated research model. The local clinical registration protocol, using a grey-scale registration algorithm, was performed for 216 CBCTs using CT, MR and sCT as the reference image. Linear mixed effects modelling identified systematic differences between modalities.

RESULTS

Systematic translation and rotation differences to CT for MR were -0.3 to + 0.3 mm and -0.1 to 0.4° for anal cancers and -0.4 to 0.0 mm and 0.0 to 0.1° for rectal cancers, and for sCT were -0.4 to + 0.8 mm, -0.1 to 0.2° for anal cancers and -0.6 to + 0.2 mm, -0.1 to + 0.1° for rectal cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

T2 MR or sCT can successfully be used as reference images for anal and rectal cancer CBCT position verification with systematic differences to CT <±1 mm and <±0.5°. Clinical enabling of alternative modalities as reference images by vendors is required to reduce challenges associated with their use.