Advertisement

Registration by interactive inverse simulation: application for adaptive radiotherapy

  • Eulalie CoevoetEmail author
  • Nick Reynaert
  • Eric Lartigau
  • Luis Schiappacasse
  • Jérémie Dequidt
  • Christian Duriez
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

This paper introduces a new methodology for semi-automatic registration of anatomical structure deformations. The contribution is to use an interactive inverse simulation of physics-based deformable model, computed in real time.

Methods

The method relies on nonlinear finite element method (FEM) within a constraint-based framework. Given a set of few registered points provided by the user, a real-time optimization adapts the boundary conditions and(/or) some parameters of the FEM in order to obtain the adequate geometrical deformations. To dramatically fasten the process, the method relies on a projection of the model in the space of the optimization variables. In this reduced space, a quadratic programming problem is formulated and solved very quickly. The method is validated with numerical examples for retrieving some unknown parameters such as the Young’s modulus and some pressures on the boundaries of the model.

Results

The approach is employed in the context of radiotherapy of the neck where weight loss during the 7 weeks of the therapy modifies the volume of the anatomical structures and induces large deformations. Indeed, sensitive structures such as the parotid glands may cross the target volume due to these deformations which leads to adverse effects for the patient. We thus apply the approach for the registration of the parotid glands during the radiotherapy of the head and neck cancer.

Conclusions

The results show how the method could be used in a clinical routine and be employed in the planning in order to limit the radiations of these glands.

Keywords

Adaptive radiotherapy Non-rigid registration Semi-automatic registration Inverse simulation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Authors would like to thank Pierre Jannin for his advice on validation. The project had the financial support of ANR JCJC Simi3 (Ideas), Oscar Lambret Hospital and Inria Lille Nord-Europe research centre.

Conflict of interest

Eulalie Coevoet, Nick Reynaert, Eric Lartigau, Luis Schiappacasse, Jérémie Dequidt and Christian Duriez declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Webb S (2003) The physical basis of IMRT and inverse planning. Br J Radiol 76:678–689PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goitein M, Abrams M (1983) Multi-dimensional treatment planning: I. Delineation of anatomy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 9(6):777–787PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nelms B, Tomé W, Robinson G, Wheller J (2012) Variations in the contouring of organs at risk: test case from a patient with oropharyngeal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 82:368–378PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Veiga C, McClelland J, Moinuddin S, Lourenço A, Ricketts K, Annkah J, Modat M, Ourselin S, D’Souza D, Royle G (2014) Toward adaptive radiotherapy for head and neck patients: feasibility study on using CT-to-CBCT deformable registration for dose of the day calculations. Med Phys 41(3):031703PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dirix P, Nuyts S, Van den Bogaert W (2006) Radiation-induced xerostomia in patients with head and neck cancer. Cancer 107(11):2525–2534PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Castadot P, Lee JA, Parraga A, Geets X, Macq B, Grégoire V (2008) Comparison of 12 deformable registration strategies in adaptive radiation therapy for the treatment of head and neck tumors. Radiother Oncol 89(1):1–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Crum WR, Hartkens T, Hill DLG (2004) Non-rigid image registration: theory and practice. Br J Radiol 77:S140–S153Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Das IJ, Moskvin V, Johnstone PA (2009) Analysis of treatment planning time among systems and planners for intensity-modulated radiation therapy. J Am Coll Radiol 6(7):514–517PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schnabel J, Tanner C, Castellano-Smith A, Degenhard A, Leach M, Hose DR, Hawkes D (2003) Validation of nonrigid image registration using finite-element methods: application to breast MR images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 22(2):238–247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhu Y, Hall TJ, Jiang J (2003) A finite-element approach for Young’s modulus reconstruction. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 22(7):890–901PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Paragios N, Rousson M, Ramesh V (2003) Non-rigid registration using distance functions. Comput Vis Image Underst 89(1):142–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kass M, Witkin A, Terzopoulos D (1987) Snake: active contour model, volume 1Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barker JL, Garden AS, Ang KK, O’Daniel JC, Wang H, Court LE, Morrison WH, Rosenthal DI, Chao KS, Tucker SL, Mohan R, Dong L (2004) Quantification of volumetric and geometric changes occurring during fractionated radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer using an integrated CT/linear accelerator system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 59(4):960–970Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Becker M, Teschner M (2007) Robust and efficient estimation of elasticity parameters using the linear finite element method. In: SimVis, pp 15–28Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eskandari H, Salcudean S, Rohling R, Bell I (2011) Real-time solution of the finite element inverse problem of viscoelasticity. Inverse Probl J 27(8):85–102Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee H-P, Foskey M, Niethammer M, Krajcevski P, Lin M (2012) Simulation-based joint estimation of body deformation and elasticity parameters for medical image analysis. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 31:2156–2168Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Faure F, Duriez C, Delingette H, Allard J, Gilles B, Marchesseau S, Talbot H, Courtecuisse H, Bousquet G, Peterlik I, Cotin S (2012) Sofa: a multi-model framework for interactive physical simulation. In: The book “Soft tissue biomechanical modeling for computer assisted surgery”, pp 283–321Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Baraff D, Witkin A (1998) Large steps in cloth simulation. In: SIGGRAPH ’98, pp 43–54Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Guebert C, Duriez C, Grisoni L (2008) Unified processing of constraints for interactive simulation. In: VRIPHYSGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fogel E, Teillaud M (2014) The computational geometry algorithms library CGAL. ACM Commun Comput Algebra 47(3/4):85–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© CARS 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eulalie Coevoet
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Nick Reynaert
    • 1
  • Eric Lartigau
    • 1
  • Luis Schiappacasse
    • 1
  • Jérémie Dequidt
    • 2
  • Christian Duriez
    • 2
  1. 1.Oscar Lambret HospitalLilleFrance
  2. 2.INRIA - University of Lille 1LilleFrance

Personalised recommendations