Patient positioning with X-ray detector self-calibration for image guided therapy

  • Boris Peter Selby
  • Georgios Sakas
  • Wolfgang-Dieter Groch
  • Uwe Stilla
Scientific Paper


Automatic alignment estimation from projection images has a range of applications, but misaligned cameras induce inaccuracies. Calibration methods for optical cameras requiring calibration bodies or detectable features have been a matter of research for years. Not so for image guided therapy, although exact patient pose recovery is crucial. To image patient anatomy, X-ray instead of optical equipment is used. Feature detection is often infeasible. Furthermore, a method not requiring a calibration body, usable during treatment, would be desirable to improve accuracy of the patient alignment. We present a novel approach not relying on image features but combining intensity based calibration with 3D pose recovery. A stereoscopic X-ray camera model is proposed, and effects of erroneous parameters on the patient alignment are evaluated. The relevant camera parameters are automatically computed by comparison of X-ray to CT images and are incorporated in the patient alignment computation. The methods were tested with ground truth data of an anatomic phantom with artificially produced misalignments and available real-patient images from a particle therapy machine. We show that our approach can compensate patient alignment errors through mis-calibration of a camera from more than 5 mm to below 0.2 mm. Usage of images with artificial noise shows that the method is robust against image degradation of 2–5%. X-ray camera self-calibration improves accuracy when cameras are misaligned. We could show that rigid body alignment was computed more accurately and that self-calibration is possible, even if detection of corresponding image features is not.


Camera calibration Computer-assisted radiation therapy Patient positioning X-ray image X-ray computed tomography 


  1. 1.
    Sobel I (1973) On calibrating computer controlled cameras for perceiving 3-D scenes. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international joint conference on artificial intelligence, Los Altos, CA, pp 646–657Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gennery DB (1979) Stereo-camera calibration. In: Proceedings of the 10th image understanding workshop, Los Angeles, CA, pp 101–107Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tsai RY (1987) A versatile camera calibration technique for high-accuracy 3D machine vision metrology using off-the-shelf TV cameras and lenses. IEEE J Robot Autom 3(4):323–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abdel-Aziz YI, Karara HM (1971) Direct linear transformation into object coordinates in close-range photogrammetry. In: Proceedings of the ASP symposium close-range photogrammetry, University Urbana, IL, pp 1–18Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Martins HA, Birk JR, Kelley RB (1981) Camera models based on data from two calibration planes. Comput Graph Image Process 17(2):173–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fischler M, Bolles R (1981) Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting applications to image analysis and automated cartography. Commun ACM 24(6):381–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Faugeras O, Luong QT, Maybank SJ (1992) Camera self-calibration: theory and experiments. In: Proc ECCV’92. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 588, Springer, Heidelberg, pp 321–334Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dang T, Hoffmann C, Stiller C (2009) Continuous stereo self-calibration by camera parameter tracking. IEEE Trans Image Process 18(7):1536–1550PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brack C, Götte H, Gossé F, Moctezuma J, Roth M, Schweikard A (1996) Towards accurate X-ray-camera calibration in computer-assisted robotic surgery. In: Proceedings of 10th international symposium of computer assisted radiology. Paris, France, pp 721–728Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yaniv Z, Joskowicz L, Simkin A, Garza-Jinich M, Milgrom C (1998) Fluoroscopic image processing for computer-aided orthopaedic surgery. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1496. Springer, Berlin, pp 325–334Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cheriet F, Meunier J (1999) Self-calibration of a biplane X-ray imaging system for an optimal three dimensional reconstruction. Comput Med Imaging Graph 23(3):133–141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Patel V, Chityala RN, Hoffmann KR, Ionita CN, Bednarek DR, Rudin S (2009) Self-calibration of a cone-beam micro-CT system. Med Phys 36(1):48–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim J, Fessler JA, Lam KL, Balter JM, Ten Haken RK (2001) A feasibility study on mutual information based set-up error estimator for radiotherapy. J Med Phys 28(12):2507–2517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Selby BP, Sakas G, Walter S, Stilla U (2007) Geometry calibration for X-ray equipment in radiation treatment devices. In: 1st Thematic conference on computational vision and medical image processing, Porto, Portugal, pp 247–252Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Claus BEH (2006) Geometry calibration phantom design for 3D imaging. In: Proceedings of SPIE medical imaging: physics of medical imaging, San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Selby BP, Sakas G, Walter S, Groch W-D, Stilla U (2007) Detection of pose changes for spatial objects from projective images. In: Proceedings of conference on photogrammetric image analysis. Munich, Germany, pp 105–110Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Selby BP, Sakas G, Walter S, Stilla U (2008) Geometry calibration for x-ray equipment in radiation treatment devices and estimation of remaining patient alignment errors. In: Proceedings of SPIE medical imaging: physics of medical imaging. San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sakas G, Selby BP, Walter S, Kussäther R (2008) Setting a relative position of a radiation device and a patient. US Patent No. 7,412,086Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zitova B, Flusser J (2003) Image registration methods: a survey. Image Vis Comput 21(11):977–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pluim J, Maintz J, Viergever M (2003) Mutual information based registration of medical images. A survey. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 22(8):986–1004PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kim J, Fessler JA (2004) Intensity-based image registration using robust correlation coefficients. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 23(11):1430–1444PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nelder JA, Mead R (1965) A simplex method for function minimization. Comput J 7:308–313Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wyman DR, Ostapiak OZ, Gamble LM (2002) Analysis of mechanical sources of patient alignment errors in radiation therapy. J Med Phys 29(11):2698–2704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Levin WP, Kooy H, Loeffler JS, de Laney TF (2005) Proton beam therapy. Br J Cancer 93(8):849–854PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Australasian College of Physical Scientists and Engineers in Medicine 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Boris Peter Selby
    • 1
    • 3
  • Georgios Sakas
    • 1
  • Wolfgang-Dieter Groch
    • 2
  • Uwe Stilla
    • 3
  1. 1.Medcom GmbHDarmstadtGermany
  2. 2.Computer SciencesUniversity of Applied SciencesDarmstadtGermany
  3. 3.Photogrammetry and Remote SensingTechnische Universitaet MuenchenMuenchenGermany

Personalised recommendations