Method comparison of automated matching software-assisted cone-beam CT and stereoscopic kilovoltage x-ray positional verification image-guided radiation therapy for head and neck cancer

A prospective analysis

Clifton D. Fuller, Todd J. Scarbrough, Jan Jakob Sonke, Coen R N Rasch, Mehee Choi, Joe Y. Ting, Samuel J. Wang, Nikos Papanikolaou, David I. Rosenthal

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We sought to characterize interchangeability and agreement between cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and digital stereoscopic kV x-ray (KVX) acquisition, two methods of isocenter positional verification currently used for IGRT of head and neck cancers (HNC). A cohort of 33 patients were near-simultaneously imaged by in-room KVX and CBCT. KVX and CBCT shifts were suggested using manufacturer software for the lateral (X), vertical (Y) and longitudinal (Z) dimensions. Intra-method repeatability, systematic and random error components were calculated for each imaging modality, as were recipe-based PTV expansion margins. Inter-method agreement in each axis was compared using limits of agreement (LOA) methodology, concordance analysis and orthogonal regression. 100 daily positional assessments were performed before daily therapy in 33 patients with head and neck cancer. Systematic error was greater for CBCT in all axes, with larger random error components in the Y- and Z-axis. Repeatability ranged from 9 to 14 mm for all axes, with CBCT showing greater repeatability in 2/3 axes. LOA showed paired shifts to agree 95% of the time within 11.3 mm in the X-axis, 9.4 mm in the Y-axis and 5.5 mm in the Z-axis. Concordance ranged from 'mediocre' to 'satisfactory'. Proportional bias was noted between paired X- and Z-axis measures, with a constant bias component in the Z-axis. Our data suggest non-negligible differences in software-derived CBCT and KVX image-guided directional shifts using formal method comparison statistics. A correction was made to the first line of page 7404 of this article on 26 November 2009. The corrected electronic version is identical to the print version.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)7401-7415
Number of pages15
JournalPhysics in Medicine and Biology
Volume54
Issue number24
DOIs
StatePublished - 2009

Fingerprint

Image-Guided Radiotherapy
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography
Head and Neck Neoplasms
Software
X-Rays
Regression Analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Cite this

Method comparison of automated matching software-assisted cone-beam CT and stereoscopic kilovoltage x-ray positional verification image-guided radiation therapy for head and neck cancer : A prospective analysis. / Fuller, Clifton D.; Scarbrough, Todd J.; Sonke, Jan Jakob; Rasch, Coen R N; Choi, Mehee; Ting, Joe Y.; Wang, Samuel J.; Papanikolaou, Nikos; Rosenthal, David I.

In: Physics in Medicine and Biology, Vol. 54, No. 24, 2009, p. 7401-7415.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Fuller, Clifton D. ; Scarbrough, Todd J. ; Sonke, Jan Jakob ; Rasch, Coen R N ; Choi, Mehee ; Ting, Joe Y. ; Wang, Samuel J. ; Papanikolaou, Nikos ; Rosenthal, David I. / Method comparison of automated matching software-assisted cone-beam CT and stereoscopic kilovoltage x-ray positional verification image-guided radiation therapy for head and neck cancer : A prospective analysis. In: Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2009 ; Vol. 54, No. 24. pp. 7401-7415.
@article{ca4025b73e6b4424a0e3c914391c28d1,
title = "Method comparison of automated matching software-assisted cone-beam CT and stereoscopic kilovoltage x-ray positional verification image-guided radiation therapy for head and neck cancer: A prospective analysis",
abstract = "We sought to characterize interchangeability and agreement between cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and digital stereoscopic kV x-ray (KVX) acquisition, two methods of isocenter positional verification currently used for IGRT of head and neck cancers (HNC). A cohort of 33 patients were near-simultaneously imaged by in-room KVX and CBCT. KVX and CBCT shifts were suggested using manufacturer software for the lateral (X), vertical (Y) and longitudinal (Z) dimensions. Intra-method repeatability, systematic and random error components were calculated for each imaging modality, as were recipe-based PTV expansion margins. Inter-method agreement in each axis was compared using limits of agreement (LOA) methodology, concordance analysis and orthogonal regression. 100 daily positional assessments were performed before daily therapy in 33 patients with head and neck cancer. Systematic error was greater for CBCT in all axes, with larger random error components in the Y- and Z-axis. Repeatability ranged from 9 to 14 mm for all axes, with CBCT showing greater repeatability in 2/3 axes. LOA showed paired shifts to agree 95{\%} of the time within 11.3 mm in the X-axis, 9.4 mm in the Y-axis and 5.5 mm in the Z-axis. Concordance ranged from 'mediocre' to 'satisfactory'. Proportional bias was noted between paired X- and Z-axis measures, with a constant bias component in the Z-axis. Our data suggest non-negligible differences in software-derived CBCT and KVX image-guided directional shifts using formal method comparison statistics. A correction was made to the first line of page 7404 of this article on 26 November 2009. The corrected electronic version is identical to the print version.",
author = "Fuller, {Clifton D.} and Scarbrough, {Todd J.} and Sonke, {Jan Jakob} and Rasch, {Coen R N} and Mehee Choi and Ting, {Joe Y.} and Wang, {Samuel J.} and Nikos Papanikolaou and Rosenthal, {David I.}",
year = "2009",
doi = "10.1088/0031-9155/54/24/010",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "54",
pages = "7401--7415",
journal = "Physics in Medicine and Biology",
issn = "0031-9155",
publisher = "IOP Publishing Ltd.",
number = "24",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Method comparison of automated matching software-assisted cone-beam CT and stereoscopic kilovoltage x-ray positional verification image-guided radiation therapy for head and neck cancer

T2 - A prospective analysis

AU - Fuller, Clifton D.

AU - Scarbrough, Todd J.

AU - Sonke, Jan Jakob

AU - Rasch, Coen R N

AU - Choi, Mehee

AU - Ting, Joe Y.

AU - Wang, Samuel J.

AU - Papanikolaou, Nikos

AU - Rosenthal, David I.

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - We sought to characterize interchangeability and agreement between cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and digital stereoscopic kV x-ray (KVX) acquisition, two methods of isocenter positional verification currently used for IGRT of head and neck cancers (HNC). A cohort of 33 patients were near-simultaneously imaged by in-room KVX and CBCT. KVX and CBCT shifts were suggested using manufacturer software for the lateral (X), vertical (Y) and longitudinal (Z) dimensions. Intra-method repeatability, systematic and random error components were calculated for each imaging modality, as were recipe-based PTV expansion margins. Inter-method agreement in each axis was compared using limits of agreement (LOA) methodology, concordance analysis and orthogonal regression. 100 daily positional assessments were performed before daily therapy in 33 patients with head and neck cancer. Systematic error was greater for CBCT in all axes, with larger random error components in the Y- and Z-axis. Repeatability ranged from 9 to 14 mm for all axes, with CBCT showing greater repeatability in 2/3 axes. LOA showed paired shifts to agree 95% of the time within 11.3 mm in the X-axis, 9.4 mm in the Y-axis and 5.5 mm in the Z-axis. Concordance ranged from 'mediocre' to 'satisfactory'. Proportional bias was noted between paired X- and Z-axis measures, with a constant bias component in the Z-axis. Our data suggest non-negligible differences in software-derived CBCT and KVX image-guided directional shifts using formal method comparison statistics. A correction was made to the first line of page 7404 of this article on 26 November 2009. The corrected electronic version is identical to the print version.

AB - We sought to characterize interchangeability and agreement between cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and digital stereoscopic kV x-ray (KVX) acquisition, two methods of isocenter positional verification currently used for IGRT of head and neck cancers (HNC). A cohort of 33 patients were near-simultaneously imaged by in-room KVX and CBCT. KVX and CBCT shifts were suggested using manufacturer software for the lateral (X), vertical (Y) and longitudinal (Z) dimensions. Intra-method repeatability, systematic and random error components were calculated for each imaging modality, as were recipe-based PTV expansion margins. Inter-method agreement in each axis was compared using limits of agreement (LOA) methodology, concordance analysis and orthogonal regression. 100 daily positional assessments were performed before daily therapy in 33 patients with head and neck cancer. Systematic error was greater for CBCT in all axes, with larger random error components in the Y- and Z-axis. Repeatability ranged from 9 to 14 mm for all axes, with CBCT showing greater repeatability in 2/3 axes. LOA showed paired shifts to agree 95% of the time within 11.3 mm in the X-axis, 9.4 mm in the Y-axis and 5.5 mm in the Z-axis. Concordance ranged from 'mediocre' to 'satisfactory'. Proportional bias was noted between paired X- and Z-axis measures, with a constant bias component in the Z-axis. Our data suggest non-negligible differences in software-derived CBCT and KVX image-guided directional shifts using formal method comparison statistics. A correction was made to the first line of page 7404 of this article on 26 November 2009. The corrected electronic version is identical to the print version.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=71949129329&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=71949129329&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1088/0031-9155/54/24/010

DO - 10.1088/0031-9155/54/24/010

M3 - Article

VL - 54

SP - 7401

EP - 7415

JO - Physics in Medicine and Biology

JF - Physics in Medicine and Biology

SN - 0031-9155

IS - 24

ER -