期刊文献+

Pinnacle与Eclipse计划系统对感兴趣区体积计算的比较 被引量:10

Comparison of region of interest volume between Pinnacle and Eclipse treatment planning system
原文传递
导出
摘要 目的分析Pinnacle与Eclipse计划系统在计算靶区与正常器官感兴趣区(ROI)体积上的差异,为临床应用提供参考。方法在Pinnacle计划系统上、在层厚分别为1、3、5mm的CT上分别勾画1、2、5个层面的正方形和圆形ROI。同时选取头、胸、腹部肿瘤病例各5例。在患者CT上勾画常见的正常器官ROI。将图像和ROI通过DICOM协议传输至Pinnacle和Eclipse计划系统,分析两种计划系统计算的ROI体积。结果小体积的ROI两种计划系统计算结果有明显的差异,ROI体积越小体积差异越大(小体积相差12倍,大体积基本相同);体积计算的差异受许多因素的影响,感兴趣区的层数和几何体的大小与体积计算的差异显著线性相关(R^2=1.000,P=0.000),CT层厚(R。=0.200,P:0.972)和几何体形状(R^2=0.200,P=0.089)的对体积计算的差异的影响不显著。几何中心不一致对Pinnacle的ROI体积计算无影响,Eclipse的ROI体积计算有3%左右的增加。CT层厚与ROI体积呈正比(Pinnacle的R^2=0.548,P=0.011;Eclipse的R^2=0.502,P=0.027)。对视交叉、视神经和晶体的体积差异均〉35%。结论两种计划系统间传输ROI,特别是小体积ROI,需要注意两种计划系统在计算ROI体积时的差异。 Objective To compare the difference region of interest volume (ROI) calculation method between Pinnacle and Eclipse treatment planning system. Methods To acquire CT image with 3 of slice thickness ( 1 mm, 3 mm, and 5 ram). Delineate 1, 2 and 5 slices square and circle contours in Pinnacle treatment planning system. Meanwhile 15 cases that include 5 cases with head neck tumor, 5 with thorax tumor and 5 with abdomen tumor were selected. Those image and ROI were transfer to Eclipse treatment plan system by DICOM RT protocol . The ROI volume was compared between two TPS . Results For ROI with small volume, the volume difference between TPS was obvious (for small volume ROI have 12 times difference, for big volume ROI almost same). The volume difference between TPS was influenced by many factors. The number of ROI slice and the magnitude of ROI was related with the difference between TPS (RE = 1. 000,P = 0. 000). The CT thickness ( R^2 = 0. 200, P = 0. 972 ) and the shape of ROI ( R^2 = 0. 200, P = 0. 089) were not significant factors. The center of ROI on different axis was not affect the volume calculation in Pinnacle, which cause 3% different in Eclipse. The CT thickness was proportional to the ROI volume ( Pinnacle R^2 = 0. 548, P = 0. 011 ; Eclipse R^2 = 0. 502, P = 0. 027 ). In clinical case, optic chiasm and Len averagely have more than 35% volume difference between those two TPS. Conclusions We should pay more attention about the difference volume calculation algorithm between Pinnacle and Eclipse, especially when transfer small volume ROI to another TPS, which may have significant difference.
出处 《中华放射肿瘤学杂志》 CSCD 北大核心 2011年第2期156-159,共4页 Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology
关键词 感兴趣区 体积计算 治疗计划系统 放射疗法 Region of interest Volume calculation Treatment planning system Radiotherapy
  • 相关文献

参考文献2

  • 1Raya S, Udupa J. Shape-based interpolation of multidimensional objects. IEEE Trans Meal Imaging, 1990,9:32-42. 被引量:1
  • 2van t' Veld A, Bruinvis I. Influence of shape on the accuracy of grid-based volume computations. Med Phys,1995,22:1377-1385. 被引量:1

同被引文献51

  • 1伍然,全红,徐利明.不同算法所得IMRT计划的剂量学验证评估[J].中国医学物理学杂志,2011,28(3):2581-2583. 被引量:7
  • 2李海滨,王丽,靳玉荣,刘大伟.ROI体积计算:ModernTPS-Winergy与Eclipse的对比[J].生物医学工程研究,2012,31(3):191-194. 被引量:1
  • 3李科,黄洁,姚毅.应用DICOM标准实现放射治疗计划系统的共享[J].生物医学工程学杂志,2005,22(1):116-119. 被引量:7
  • 4Van t' Veld A,Bruinvis I. Influence of shape on the accuracy of grid-based volume computations[J].Medical Physics,1995.1377-1385. 被引量:1
  • 5Stytz M R,Frieder G,Frieder O. Three-dimensional medical imaging:algorithms and omputer systems[J].ACM Computing Surveys,1991,(04):421-499. 被引量:1
  • 6Stringham R,Barret W. Shape-based interpolation of grayscale serial slice images[J].SPIE,1993.105-115. 被引量:1
  • 7Shih W S V,Lin W C& Chen C T. Morphologic field morphing:contour model-guided image[J].International J of Imaging Systems and Technology,1999,(05):480-490. 被引量:1
  • 8Nguyen N,Milanfar P,Golub G A. Computationally efficient superresolution image reconstruction algorithm[J].IEEE Transactions on Image Processing,2001,(04):573-583. 被引量:1
  • 9Rays S,Udupa J. Shape-based interpolation of multidimensional objects[J].IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging,1999.32-42. 被引量:1
  • 10Wenyin Shi, Chihray Liu, Bo Lu, etal. The Effect of Intravenous Contrast on Photon Radiation Therapy Dose Calculations for Lung Cancer[J]. American Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2010, 33 ( 2 ) : 153-156. 被引量:1

引证文献10

二级引证文献15

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部