Multi-system verification of registrations for image-guided radiotherapy in clinical trials

Yunfeng Cui, James M. Galvin, William L. Straube, Walter R. Bosch, James A. Purdy, X. Allen Li, Ying Xiao

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

12 Scopus citations


Purpose: To provide quantitative information on the image registration differences from multiple systems for image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) credentialing and margin reduction in clinical trials. Methods and Materials: Images and IGRT shift results from three different treatment systems (Tomotherapy Hi-Art, Elekta Synergy, Varian Trilogy) have been sent from various institutions to the Image-Guided Therapy QA Center (ITC) for evaluation for the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) trials. Nine patient datasets (five head-and-neck and four prostate) were included in the comparison, with each patient having 1-4 daily individual IGRT studies. In all cases, daily shifts were re-calculated by re-registration of the planning CT with the daily IGRT data using three independent software systems (MIMvista, FocalSim, VelocityAI). Automatic fusion was used in all calculations. The results were compared with those submitted from institutions. Similar regions of interest (ROIs) and same initial positions were used in registrations for inter-system comparison. Different slice spacings for CBCT sampling and different ROIs for registration were used in some cases to observe the variation of registration due to these factors. Results: For the 54 comparisons with head-and-neck datasets, the absolute values of differences of the registration results between different systems were 2.6 ± 2.1 mm (mean ± SD; range 0.1-8.6 mm, left-right [LR]), 1.7 ± 1.3 mm (0.0-4.9 mm, superior-inferior [SI]), and 1.8 ± 1.1 mm (0.1-4.0 mm, anterior-posterior [AP]). For the 66 comparisons in prostate cases, the differences were 1.1 ± 1.0 mm (0.0-4.6 mm, LR), 2.1 ± 1.7 mm (0.0-6.6 mm, SI), and 2.0 ± 1.8 mm (0.1-6.9 mm, AP). The differences caused by the slice spacing variation were relatively small, and the different ROI selections in FocalSim and MIMvista also had limited impact. Conclusion: The extent of differences was reported when different systems were used for image registration. Careful examination and quality assurance of the image registration process are crucial before considering margin reduction using IGRT in clinical trials.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)305-312
Number of pages8
JournalInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
Issue number1
StatePublished - Sep 1 2011


  • Clinical trial
  • IGRT
  • Multi-system verification
  • Registration


Dive into the research topics of 'Multi-system verification of registrations for image-guided radiotherapy in clinical trials'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this