ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: We evaluate the performance of a deformable image registration (DIR) software package in registering abdominal magnetic resonance images (MRIs) and then develop a mechanical modeling method to mitigate detected DIR uncertainties. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three evaluation metrics, namely mean displacement to agreement (MDA), DICE similarity coefficient (DSC), and standard deviation of Jacobian determinants (STD-JD), are used to assess the multi-modality (MM), contour-consistency (CC), and image-intensity (II)-based DIR algorithms in the MIM software package, as well as an in-house developed, contour matching-based finite element method (CM-FEM). Furthermore, we develop a hybrid FEM registration technique to modify the displacement vector field of each MIM registration. The MIM and FEM registrations were evaluated on MRIs obtained from 10 abdominal cancer patients. One-tailed Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney (WMW) tests were conducted to compare the MIM registrations with their FEM modifications. RESULTS: For the registrations performed with the MIM-CC, MIM-MM, MIM-II, and CM-FEM algorithms, their average MDAs are 0.62 ± 0.27, 2.39 ± 1.30, 3.07 ± 2.42, 1.04 ± 0.72 mm, and average DSCs are 0.94 ± 0.03, 0.80 ± 0.12, 0.77 ± 0.15, 0.90 ± 0.11, respectively. The p-values of the WMW tests between the MIM registrations and their FEM modifications are less than 0.0084 for STD-JDs and greater than 0.87 for MDA and DSC. CONCLUSIONS: Among the three MIM DIR algorithms, MIM-CC shows the smallest errors in terms of MDA and DSC but exhibits significant Jacobian uncertainties in the interior regions of abdominal organs. The hybrid FEM technique effectively mitigates the Jacobian uncertainties in these regions.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Oncology Medical Physics Education Subcommittee (ROMPES) has updated the radiation oncology physics core curriculum for medical residents in the radiation oncology specialty. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirteen physicists from the United States and Canada involved in radiation oncology resident education were recruited to ROMPES. The group included doctorates and master's of physicists with a range of clinical or academic roles. Radiation oncology physician and resident representatives were also consulted in the development of this curriculum. In addition to modernizing the material to include new technology, the updated curriculum is consistent with the format of the American Board of Radiology Physics Study Guide Working Group to promote concordance between current resident educational guidelines and examination preparation guidelines. RESULTS: The revised core curriculum recommends 56 hours of didactic education like the 2015 curriculum but was restructured to provide resident education that facilitates best clinical practice and scientific advancement in radiation oncology. The reference list, glossary, and practical modules were reviewed and updated to include recent literature and clinical practice examples. CONCLUSIONS: ROMPES has updated the core physics curriculum for radiation oncology residents. In addition to providing a comprehensive curriculum to promote best practice for radiation oncology practitioners, the updated curriculum aligns with recommendations from the American Board of Radiology Physics Study Guide Working Group. New technology has been integrated into the curriculum. The updated curriculum provides a framework to appropriately cover the educational topics for radiation oncology residents in preparation for their subsequent career development.
