Performance Evaluation of Deformable Image Registration Systems – SmartAdapt® and Velocity™

Abstract

Aim: To commission and validate commercial deformable image registration (DIR) systems (SmartAdapt® and Velocity™) using task group 132 (TG-132) digital phantom datasets. Additionally, the study compares and verifies the DIR algorithms of the two systems. Materials and Methods: TG-132 digital phantoms were obtained from the American Association of Physicists in Medicine website and imported into SmartAdapt® and Velocity™ systems for commissioning and validation. The registration results were compared with known shifts using rigid registrations and deformable registrations. Virtual head and neck phantoms obtained online (DIR Evaluation Project) and some selected clinical data sets from the department were imported into the two DIR systems. For both of these datasets, DIR was carried out between the source and target images, and the contours were then propagated from the source to the target image data set. The dice similarity coefficient (DSC), mean distance to agreement (MDA), and Jacobian determinant measures were utilised to evaluate the registration results. Results: The recommended criteria for commissioning and validation of DIR system from TG-132 was error <0.5*voxel dimension (vd). Translation only registration: Both systems met TG-132 recommendations except computed tomography (CT)-positron emission tomography registration in both systems (Velocity ~1.1*vd, SmartAdapt ~1.6*vd). Translational and rotational registration: Both systems failed the criteria for all modalities (For velocity, error ranged from 0.6*vd [CT-CT registration] to 3.4*vd [CT-cone-beam CT (CBCT) registration]. For SmartAdapt® the range was 0.6*vd [CT-CBCT] to 3.6*vd [CT-CT]). Mean ± standard deviation for DSC, MDA and Jacobian metrics were used to compare the DIR results between SmartAdapt® and Velocity™. Conclusion: The DIR algorithms of SmartAdapt® and Velocity™ were commissioned and their deformation results were compared. Both systems can be used for clinical purpose. While there were only minimal differences between the two systems, Velocity™ provided lower values for parotids, bladder, rectum, and prostate (soft tissue) compared to SmartAdapt. However, for mandible, spinal cord, and femoral heads (rigid structures), both systems showed nearly identical results.

Keywords

• commissioning
• deformable image registration
• digital phantom datasets
• image registration algorithms
• smartadapt®
• task group 132
• validation
• velocity™