Deformable image registration for composite planned doses during adaptive radiation therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Some patients have significant anatomic changes during radiotherapy, necessitating an adaptive repeat CT-simulation and re-planning. This yields two unique planning datasets that introduce uncertainty into total dose records. This study explored the impact of using deformable image registration (DIR) to spatially align repeat CT-simulation images and calculate total planned dose distributions.

MATERIALS & METHODS: Data from 5 head-and-neck, 5 lung, and 5 sarcoma patients who had unanticipated re-planning during radiotherapy were analyzed in a treatment planning system (RayStation v6.1 RaySearch Laboratories). Total planned doses to normal tissues were calculated using two methods and the previously generated manual contours defined on each CT. The first method, termed 'parameter addition', simply sums the relevant DVH metrics from the initial and re-planned distributions without spatially registering the CTs. The second, termed 'dose accumulation', uses a validated hybrid contour/intensity-based DIR algorithm to deform initial CT and dose distribution onto the repeat CT and re-planning dose distribution. DVH metrics from the summed distribution on the repeat CT are then calculated. Dose differences for organs-at-risk between parameter addition and dose accumulation ≥100 cGy were assumed to be clinically relevant. To elucidate whether relevant differences were due to registration accuracy or contouring variability between CTs, the analysis was repeated using contours on the first CT and the same contours deformed to the repeat CT with DIR.

RESULTS: For all patients, high overall DIR accuracy was verified visually (qualitatively) and numerically (quantitatively) using image similarity and contour-based metrics. All head-and-neck and lung patients, and one sarcoma patient (11 of 15 total) had dose differences between parameter addition and dose accumulation ≥100 cGy, with absolute mean differences of 160 cGy (range 101-436 cGy) seen in 41 of 205 total DVH criteria. In 22 of these 41 criteria, these differences were attributed to contouring variability between CTs. After correcting for contouring variations using DIR, the mean absolute differences in 7 of these 22 criteria with a relevant result (across 6 patients) was 146 cGy (range 100-502 cGy). In only 4 DVH criteria, the DIR mapped contours had higher variations than the original contours. One lung patient had a DVH criteria exceeding the clinical dose constraint by 125 cGy with parameter addition, and with accurate DIR and dose accumulation, the criteria was actually 97 cGy lower than the constraint.

CONCLUSIONS: The use of DIR to generate total planned dose records revealed substantial dose differences in most cases compared to commonly used clinical methods (i.e. parameter addition), and altered the planned acceptance criteria in a minority. DIR is recommended to be used for future adaptive re-plans to generate total planned dose records and facilitate accurate re-contouring. More accurate dose records may also improve our understanding of clinical outcomes.