Modeling Complex Deformations of the Sigmoid Colon Between External Beam Radiation Therapy and Brachytherapy Images of Cervical Cancer

Purpose: In this study, we investigated registration methods for estimating the large interfractional sigmoid deformations that occur between external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and brachytherapy (BT) for cervical cancer. Methods and Materials: Sixty-three patients were retrospectively analyzed. The sigmoid colon was delineated on 2 computed tomography images acquired during EBRT (without applicator) and BT (with applicator) for each patient. Five registration approaches were compared to propagate the contour of the sigmoid from BT to EBRT anatomies: rigid registration, commercial hybrid (ANAtomically CONstrained Deformation Algorithm), controlling ROI surface projection of RayStation, and the classical and constrained symmetrical thin-plate spline robust point matching (sTPS-RPM) methods. Deformation of the sigmoid due to insertion of the BT applicator was reported. Registration performance was compared by using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), distance to agreement, and Hausdorff distance. The 2 sTPS-RPM methods were compared by using surface triangle quality criteria between deformed surfaces. Using the deformable approaches, the BT dose of the sigmoid was deformed toward the EBRT anatomy. The displacement and discrepancy between the deformable methods to propagate the planned D1cm³ and D2cm³ of the sigmoid from BT to EBRT anatomies were reported for 55 patients. Results: Large and complex deformations of the sigmoid were observed for each patient. Rigid registration resulted in poor sigmoid alignment with a mean DSC of 0.26. Using the contour to drive the deformation, ANAtomically CONstrained Deformation Algorithm was able to slightly improve the alignment of the sigmoid with a mean DSC of 0.57. Using only the sigmoid surface as controlling ROI, the mean DSC was improved to 0.79. The classical and constrained sTPS-RPM methods provided mean DSCs of 0.95 and 0.96, respectively, with an average inverse consistency error <1 mm. The constrained sTPS-RPM provided more realistic deformations and better surface topology of the deformed sigmoids. The planned mean (range) D1cm³ and D2cm³ of the sigmoid were 13.4 Gy (1-24.1) and 12.2 Gy (1-21.5) on the BT anatomy, respectively. Using the constrained sTPS-RPM to deform the sigmoid from BT to EBRT anatomies, these hotspots had a mean (range) displacement of 27.1 mm (6.8-81). Conclusions: Large deformations of the sigmoid were observed between the EBRT and BT anatomies, suggesting that the D1cm³ and D2cm³ of the sigmoid would unlikely to be at the same position throughout treatment. The proposed constrained sTPS-RPM seems to be the preferred approach to manage the large deformation due to BT applicator insertion. Such an approach could be used to map the EBRT dose to the BT anatomy for personalized BT planning optimization.