1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
An accuracy assessment of different rigid body image registration methods and robotic couch positional corrections using a novel phantom
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1118/1.4789490
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/40/3/10.1118/1.4789490
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/40/3/10.1118/1.4789490

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Schematic diagram of phantom body ((a) top view and (b) side view). (c) Schematic diagram of the phantom mounted on a rotatable platform. (d) Picture of the prototype version of phantom developed inhouse.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

Difference between the actual and set angles when the phantom was rotated to different angles in x, y and z directions by three different users.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Mean errors (with 1σ) in translational and rotational directions when the imaging and registration is performed under various possible combinations using XVI system.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

(a) Reference and verification images of the phantom in (i) axial, (ii) sagittal, and (iii) coronal planes for one of the positional offsets (Set9) listed in Table III . (b) Coregistered reference and verification images of the phantom in (i) axial, (ii) sagittal, (iii) coronal planes for the same study. Verification images are reconstructed using high resolution reconstruction algorithm and registered with reference image using gray value registration method.

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

Mean difference (with 1σ) between set and XVI calculated positional error values in all six directions for different image reconstruction and image registration combination for all offsets listed in Table III .

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

Mean residual errors (with 1σ) in translational and rotational directions for corrections performed through HexaPOD couch for the offsets shown in Table III .

Tables

Generic image for table
TABLE I.

Preset rotational offsets set by different users to verify the rotational accuracy of the phantom.

Generic image for table
TABLE II.

Key characteristics of various CBCT image acquisition protocols used in the study.

Generic image for table
TABLE III.

Translational and rotational offsets used in the study to test the accuracy offsets predicted by XVI software.

Generic image for table
TABLE IV.

Expanded uncertainties in phantom rotational offsets measured when three different users set the phantom to preset rotational offsets.

Generic image for table
TABLE V.

Positional error values from XVI after verifying the phantom position on the treatment couch.

Generic image for table
TABLE VI.

Uncertainties resulting from different components in the XVI imaging and registration process.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aapm/journal/medphys/40/3/10.1118/1.4789490
2013-02-08
2014-04-18
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: An accuracy assessment of different rigid body image registration methods and robotic couch positional corrections using a novel phantom
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/40/3/10.1118/1.4789490
10.1118/1.4789490
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM