Key result
Manual CT registration reduces required target expansion margins to 4 mm vs. automated methods in STAR.
Why the study?
Does manual rigid registration of cardiac CT to planning CT reduce target margin uncertainty compared to automated registration in patients undergoing stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation?
Observational (n=15)
Observers were blinded to the alignments of other observers
No
Does manual rigid registration of cardiac CT to planning CT reduce target margin uncertainty compared to automated registration in patients undergoing stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation?
Registration of cardiac CT to planning CT contributes approximately 3 mm of uncertainty to the STAR targeting process, highlighting the need to explicitly account for this in target margin assessment.
Registration uncertainty warrants margin adjustment in STAR planning; leaves open optimal workflows pending human validation.
Background and purpose . To determine the interobserver variability in registrations of cardiac computed tomography (CT) images and to assess the margins needed to account for the observed variability in the context of stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation (STAR). Materials and methods. STAR targets were delineated on cardiac CTs for fifteen consecutive patients. Ten expert observers were asked to rigidly register the cardiac CT images to corresponding planning CT images. Registrations all started with a fully automated registration step, followed by manual adjustments. The targets were transferred from cardiac to planning CT using each of the registrations along with one consensus registration for each patient. The margin needed for the consensus target to encompass each of the observer and fully automated targets was measured. Results. A total of 150 registrations were evaluated for this study. Manual registrations required an average (standard deviation) of 5 min, 55 s (2 min, 10 s) to perform. The automated registration, without manual intervention, required an expansion of 6 mm to achieve 95% overlap for 97% of patients. For the manual registrations, an expansion of 4 mm achieved 95% overlap for 97% of the patients and observers. The remaining 3% required expansions from 4 to 9 mm. An expansion of 3 mm achieved 95% overlap in 88% of the cases. Some patients required larger expansions compared to others and small target volume was common among these more difficult cases. Neither breath-hold nor target position were observed to impact variability among observers. Some of the observers required larger expansions compared to others and those requiring the largest margins were not the same from patient to patient. Conclusion. Registration of cardiac CT to the planning CT contributed approximately 3 mm of uncertainty to the STAR targeting process. Accordingly, workflows in which target delineation is performed on cardiac CT should explicitly account for this uncertainty in the overall target margin assessment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bredfeldt et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Refractory ventricular tachycardia (n=15). Manual rigid registration of cardiac CT to planning CT vs. Fully automated registration was evaluated on Margin expansion needed to achieve 95% target overlap for 97% of patients. Manual rigid registration of cardiac CT to planning CT required a 4 mm expansion to achieve 95% target overlap for 97% of patients, compared to 6 mm for automated registration, contributing approximately 3 mm of uncertainty to the STAR targeting process.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: