Radiomics of CT Features May Be Nonreproducible and Redundant: Influence of CT Acquisition Parameters.

Purpose To identify the reproducible and nonredundant radiomics features (RFs) for computed tomography (CT). Materials and Methods Two phantoms were used to test RF reproducibility by using test-retest analysis, by changing the CT acquisition parameters (hereafter, intra-CT analysis), and by comparing five different scanners with the same CT parameters (hereafter, inter-CT analysis). Reproducible RFs were selected by using the concordance correlation coefficient (as a measure of the agreement between variables) and the coefficient of variation (defined as the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean). Redundant features were grouped by using hierarchical cluster analysis. Results A total of 177 RFs including intensity, shape, and texture features were evaluated. The test-retest analysis showed that 91% (161 of 177) of the RFs were reproducible according to concordance correlation coefficient. Reproducibility of intra-CT RFs, based on coefficient of variation, ranged from 89.3% (151 of 177) to 43.1% (76 of 177) where the pitch factor and the reconstruction kernel were modified, respectively. Reproducibility of inter-CT RFs, based on coefficient of variation, also showed large material differences, from 85.3% (151 of 177; wood) to only 15.8% (28 of 177; polyurethane). Ten clusters were identified after the hierarchical cluster analysis and one RF per cluster was chosen as representative. Conclusion Many RFs were redundant and nonreproducible. If all the CT parameters are fixed except field of view, tube voltage, and milliamperage, then the information provided by the analyzed RFs can be summarized in only 10 RFs (each representing a cluster) because of redundancy.

The influence of the image registration method on the adaptive radiotherapy. A proof of the principle in a selected case of prostate IMRT.

PURPOSE: To analyse the influence of the image registration method on the adaptive radiotherapy of an IMRT prostate treatment, and to compare the dose accumulation according to 3 different image registration methods with the planned dose. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The IMRT prostate patient was CT imaged 3 times throughout his treatment. The prostate, PTV, rectum and bladder were segmented on each CT. A Rigid, a deformable (DIR) B-spline and a DIR with landmarks registration algorithms were employed. The difference between the accumulated doses and planned doses were evaluated by the gamma index. The Dice coefficient and Hausdorff distance was used to evaluate the overlap between volumes, to quantify the quality of the registration. RESULTS: When comparing adaptive vs no adaptive RT, the gamma index calculation showed large differences depending on the image registration method (as much as 87.6% in the case of DIR B-spline). The quality of the registration was evaluated using an index such as the Dice coefficient. This showed that the best result was obtained with DIR with landmarks compared with the rest and it was always above 0.77, reported as a recommended minimum value for prostate studies in a multi-centre review. CONCLUSIONS: Apart from showing the importance of the application of an adaptive RT protocol in a particular treatment, this work shows that the election of the registration method is decisive in the result of the adaptive radiotherapy and dose accumulation.

Effect of rectal enemas on rectal dosimetric parameters during high-dose-rate vaginal cuff brachytherapy: A prospective trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of rectal enemas on rectal doses during postoperative high-dose-rate (HDR) vaginal cuff brachytherapy (VCB). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective trial included 59 patients. Two rectal cleansing enemas were self-administered before the second fraction, and fraction 1 was considered the basal status. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) values were generated for the rectum and correlated with rectal volume variation. Statistical analyses used paired and unpaired t-tests. RESULTS: Despite a significant 15 % reduction in mean rectal volume (44.07 vs. 52.15 cc, p = 0.0018), 35.6 % of patients had larger rectums after rectal enemas. No significant rectal enema-related DVH differences were observed compared to the basal data. Although not statistically significant, rectal cleansing-associated increases in mean rectal DVH values were observed: D0.1 cc: 6.6 vs. 7.21 Gy; D1 cc: 5.35 vs. 5.52 Gy; D2 cc: 4.67 vs. 4.72 Gy, before and after rectal cleaning, respectively (where Dx cc is the dose to the most exposed x cm(3)). No differences were observed in DVH parameters according to rectal volume increase or decrease after the enema. Patients whose rectal volume increased also had significantly larger DVH parameters, except for D5 %, D25 %, and D50 %. In contrast, in patients whose rectal volume decreased, significance was only seen for D25 % and D50 % (Dx % dose covering x % of the volume). In the latter patients, nonsignificant reductions in D2 cc, D5 cc and V5 Gy (volume receiving at least 5 Gy) were observed. CONCLUSION: The current rectal enemas protocol was ineffective in significantly modifying rectal DVH parameters for HDR-VCB.