Jason Pukala, Perry B. Johnson, Amish P. Shah, Katja M. Langen, Frank J. Bova, Robert J. Staton, Rafael R. Mañon, Patrick Kelly, Sanford L. Meeks
Abstract
Benchmarking is a process in which standardized tests are used to assess system performance. The data produced in the process are important for comparative purposes, particularly when considering the implementation and quality assurance of DIR algorithms. In this work, five commercial DIR algorithms (MIM, Velocity, RayStation, Pinnacle, and Eclipse) were benchmarked using a set of 10 virtual phantoms. The phantoms were previously developed based on CT data collected from real head and neck patients. Each phantom includes a start of treatment CT dataset, an end of treatment CT dataset, and the ground-truth deformation vector field (DVF) which links them together. These virtual phantoms were imported into the commercial systems and registered through a deformable process. The resulting DVFs were compared to the ground-truth DVF to determine the target registration error (TRE) at every voxel within the image set. Real treatment plans were also recalculated on each end of treatment CT dataset and the dose transferred according to both the ground-truth and test DVFs. Dosimetric changes were assessed, and TRE was correlated with changes in the DVH of individual structures. In the first part of the study, results show mean TRE on the order of 0.5 mm to 3 mm for all phantoms and ROIs. In certain instances, however, misregistrations were encountered which produced mean and max errors up to 6.8 mm and 22 mm, respectively. In the second part of the study, dosimetric error was found to be strongly correlated with TRE in the brainstem, but weakly correlated with TRE in the spinal cord. Several interesting cases were assessed which highlight the interplay between the direction and magnitude of TRE and the dose distribution, including the slope of dosimetric gradients and the distance to critical structures. This information can be used to help clinicians better implement and test their algorithms, and also understand the strengths and weaknesses of a dose adaptive approach. PACS number(s): 87.57.nj, 87.55.dk, 87.55.Qr.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 November 2025.
All research outputs
#10,040,540
of 32,950,213 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics
#343
of 2,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,424
of 328,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics
#5
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,950,213 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,345 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,669 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
