Influence of different factors on registration error in a 1.5 T MR-guided linac

• Published in: Physics in medicine & biology Vol. 68; no. 10
• Main Authors: Yin, Peijun, Yu, Gang, Hou, Chuanke, Liu, Xuechun, Sun, Mengdi, Li, Kuo, Cui, Zhen, Liu, Pei, Shi, Xihua, Zhang, Qiang, Chen, Yukai, Pi, Bingjie, Yin, Yong, Li, Zhenjiang
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England 21-05-2023
• Subjects: Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods; Particle Accelerators; Radiotherapy Dosage; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods; Radiotherapy, Image-Guided - methods; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; MR-linac; registration; MRgRT
• ISSN: 1361-6560
• DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/accef9

. Accurate image registration is an important step in online image-guided adaptive radiotherapy. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of different factors on registration accuracy in a magnetic resonance (MR)-guided adaptive radiotherapy workflow.
. A thorax motion phantom was used to obtain computed tomography (CT) simulations in 8 different motion modes and to generate 8 reference plans. Daily pretreatment online MR images were obtained at 5 different positions in each reference plan. Online MR and CT simulations were separately registered using bone structures and the gross tumor volume (GTV) as ROIs, and the image shift distance was recorded by the online treatment planning system. The difference between the shift distance and the real isocentric distance was the registration error. The registration error was analyzed, and the effects of the setup position, motion mode and ROI selection on the registration error were investigated by multivariate analysis of variance.
. The minimum values of registration error (Δ
, Δ
, Δ
) were -1.90 mm, -2.70 mm and -2.40 mm, respectively, and the maximum values were 1.70 mm, 4.30 mm and -0.90 mm. ΔY showed the maximum mean standard deviation of 1.25 mm, and Δ
showed the minimum mean standard deviation of 0.27 mm. The standard deviation of the registration error is largest in the inferior/superior direction. The motion mode of the phantom and ROI selection were significantly correlated with Δ
, Δ
, and Δ
(
< 0.05).
. The registration result with the spine as the selected ROI was better than that with the GTV as the ROI. In 1.5 T MR-linac clinical treatment, more attention should be given to patient movement repeatability and to controlling the intrafractional motion as much as possible. It is not recommended to make the GTV-PTV margin expansion less than 2 mm for MR-linac.