ABSTRACT
Digital intelligent diagnostic and treatment technology refers to a novel technology which is based by associating digitalized and intelligent high-tech with modern science to form a multi-knowledge and multi-disciplinary domain; it includes three-dimensional visualization,3 D printing,molecular fluorescence imaging,mixed reality,photoacoustic imaging,artificial intelligence-radiomis and real-time multimodal image surgical navigation.It plays a significant role in precision diagnosis,preoperative planning and intraoperative navigation of diseases.The authors' team,combining digital intelligent technology with the actual vascular distribution of patients,has been committed to the realization of individualized liver segmentation,volume calculation,simulation surgery,preoperative planning,mixed reality,tumor boundary definition and real-time image fusion for navigation in liver surgery.The research results were applied clinically,and achieved anatomical,functional,and radical hepatectomy for liver tumors.
ABSTRACT
Objective To analyze the differences between calculated and actual volumes of regions of interest ( ROIs) in three treatment planning systems ( TPSs):PrecisePlan, Xio, and Oncentra, to transfer different ROIs and compare their calculated volume between the three TPSs, and to provide a basis for clinical application. Methods Different sizes of ROIs were delineated on 5 sets of computed tomography ( CT) images with different slice thickness. Square and round regions with different slice numbers were contoured in a homogeneous phantom. Three groups of patients ( n=5) with head and neck tumor, chest and abdomen tumor, and pelvic tumor, respectively, were enrolled as subjects. All the ROIs were independently transferred back and forth between three TPSs and different workstations with the same system in DICOM RT format. The changes in actual and calculated ROI volumes were evaluated after back and forth transfer. Results There was a significant positive linear correlation between the calculated volume, slice thickness, slice number, and actual volume of ROI in each TPS ( PrecisePlan:R2=0. 994, P<0. 01;Xio:R2=0. 997, P<0. 01;Oncentra:R2=0. 995, P<0. 01) . There were significant differences in all calculated ROI volumes of the head, chest and abdomen between the three TPS ( P<0. 05) except for the calculated ROI volumes of the chest and abdomen between Oncentra and Xio ( P=0. 114 ) . Conclusions The variations in volume calculation algorithm and slice thickness are the main causes of differences in calculated ROI volume. Particularly, small?volume ROIs have the greatest variation in calculated volume. To avoid a secondary reconstruction of ROI volume, it is recommended to transfer ROI back and forth between dose calculation workstations with the same TPS.
ABSTRACT
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 mm). 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 (R2 = 1. 000, P = 0. 000). The CT thickness (R2 = 0. 200, P = 0. 972 ) and the shape of ROI ( R2 =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 R2 = 0. 548, P = 0. 011; Eclipse R2 = 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.