ESTERR-PRO: A setup verification software system using electronic portal imaging

Asvestas, PA; Delibasis, KK; Mouravliansky, NA; Matsopoulos, GK

dc.contributor.author	Asvestas, PA	en
dc.contributor.author	Delibasis, KK	en
dc.contributor.author	Mouravliansky, NA	en
dc.contributor.author	Matsopoulos, GK	en
dc.date.accessioned	2014-03-01T01:26:18Z
dc.date.available	2014-03-01T01:26:18Z
dc.date.issued	2007	en
dc.identifier.issn	16874188	en
dc.identifier.uri	https://dspace.lib.ntua.gr/xmlui/handle/123456789/17994
dc.subject	Software Systems	en
dc.title	ESTERR-PRO: A setup verification software system using electronic portal imaging	en
heal.type	journalArticle	en
heal.identifier.primary	10.1155/2007/61523	en
heal.identifier.secondary	61523	en
heal.identifier.secondary	http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2007/61523	en
heal.publicationDate	2007	en
heal.abstract	The purpose of the paper is to present and evaluate the performance of a new software-based registration system for patient setup verification, during radiotherapy, using electronic portal images. The estimation of setup errors, using the proposed system, can be accomplished by means of two alternate registration methods. (a) The portal image of the current fraction of the treatment is registered directly with the reference image (digitally reconstructed radiograph (DRR) or simulator image) using a modified manual technique. (b) The portal image of the current fraction of the treatment is registered with the portal image of the first fraction of the treatment (reference portal image) by applying a nearly automated technique based on self-organizing maps, whereas the reference portal has already been registered with a DRR or a simulator image. The proposed system was tested on phantom data and on data from six patients. The root mean square error (RMSE) of the setup estimates was 0.8±0.3 (mean value ± standard deviation) for the phantom data and 0.3±0.3 for the patient data, respectively, by applying the two methodologies. Furthermore, statistical analysis by means of the Wilcoxon nonparametric signed test showed that the results that were obtained by the two methods did not differ significantly (P value >0.05).	en
heal.journalName	International Journal of Biomedical Imaging	en
dc.identifier.doi	10.1155/2007/61523	en
dc.identifier.volume	2007	en