CT1 was set as the reference image, and CT2 was set as the target image; CT2 was separately processed for rigid and DF to CT1 using Varian Velocity 3.2.1 software (shown in Figure 1 ). According to the registration image deformation point review and the vector field generated by the vector review, the rigid and deformation plan2 dose was determined according to plan1 and summed with the plan1 dose to obtain planrig and plandef. The flow chart is shown in Figure 2 .
Velocity 3
Manufactured by Agilent Technologies
Sourced in United States
The Velocity 3.2.1 is a software application designed for data acquisition, processing, and analysis in laboratory environments. It provides core functionalities for data management, visualization, and reporting without making any claims about its intended use.
Automatically generated - may contain errors
Lab products found in correlation
4 protocols using velocity 3
1
Rigid and Deformable Image Registration Protocol
2
Evaluating Prostate Delineation Accuracy
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
Four ROs participated in the study. The RO’s total experience, for low- or high-dose-rate brachytherapy, in number of years with TRUS-based implantation and CT-based planning was as follows: RO1 = 14, RO2 = 18, RO3 = 7, and RO4 = 2. At the time of the study, the four ROs had 2 years of experience specifically with HDR TRUS-based planning procedures. They all delineated the prostate on both imaging modalities, starting with the same modality for the 30 patients before switching to the next modality. Contours were blinded, meaning that CT could not be used to help with TRUS prostate delineation and vice-versa.
For a valid comparison between both imaging modalities, a rigid registration between CT and TRUS images was done for 20 of the 30 patients, using gold fiducials markers inserted in the prostate at the time of HDR boost. The remaining 10 patients did not have fiducials, so the registration was not performed for those 10 patients. A third year radiation oncology resident used gold markers to complete the registration (Velocity 3.2.1, Varian) (Figure 1 ). All registrations were reviewed by an experienced RO, and registration errors were calculated for each gold marker.
For a valid comparison between both imaging modalities, a rigid registration between CT and TRUS images was done for 20 of the 30 patients, using gold fiducials markers inserted in the prostate at the time of HDR boost. The remaining 10 patients did not have fiducials, so the registration was not performed for those 10 patients. A third year radiation oncology resident used gold markers to complete the registration (Velocity 3.2.1, Varian) (
3
Automatic Segmentation Accuracy Evaluation
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
Our method generates five probability maps, which indicate the probability of a given voxel to belong to a specific class. To compare them with manual segments, a defuzzification procedure was applied to convert this fuzzy partition to a crisp partition. Defuzzification involves a maximum membership conversion procedure in which a given the voxel k is assigned to the class Cj, j = 1,...N, for which it has the highest membership probability (u).
Volume ratios, Dice coefficient, and Hausdorff distance metric were calculated using Velocity AI (Velocity 3.2.1, Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA), and compared between automatic segmentation and manual contouring. To evaluate overall segmentation accuracy, a weighted Dice coefficient (S ¯ S ¯
Volume ratios, Dice coefficient, and Hausdorff distance metric were calculated using Velocity AI (Velocity 3.2.1, Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA), and compared between automatic segmentation and manual contouring. To evaluate overall segmentation accuracy, a weighted Dice coefficient (
4
Hybrid PSI and EBRT Planning
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
If a patient had received therapy with PSI only, the same planning target volume (PTV) was used for the simulation of EBT. If PSI had been combined with EBRT, the intent was either to boost the whole tumor or to treat parts of the tumor before EBRT (e.g., when parts of the tumor were in close proximity to organs at risk [OARs]). In case of partial treatment with PSI, the PTV still resembled the whole tumor and no dedicated partial PTV was done to treat as much of the PTV as possible with PSI. To establish a realistic partial PTV for simulation of EBT ex post, the 100%-isodose line of PSI was transformed into a structure in Velocity 3.2.1 (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA, USA), and was considered as PTV. Subsequently, this partial PTV from PSI represented the PTV for EBT. For relative comparison only, previously prescribed PSI doses were adopted for EBT and required to cover 90% of the PTV for EBT.
About PubCompare
Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.
We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.
However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.
Ready to get started?
Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required
Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!