Dear Authors,
If you believe that your paper was mistakenly rejected by other leading journals and you do not agree with final decision, the editors of Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy offer new fast track review. You may submit your manuscript to Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy together with all prior peer-reviews obtained from the other journal and your rebuttal letter. We guarantee review based decision within 72 hours from the time we will receive your manuscript.

Fast track submission process: Please submit the manuscript with all reviews and rebuttal letter by email to Dr. Michal Masternak ( for fast review processing. To assure immediate attention the email title must to include: RPOR-fast track- Last Name First Name (of corresponding author).

Volume 14, Number 4, 2009

Comparison of image registration perfomed with MV cone beam CT and CT on rails and Syngo TM Adaptie Targeting software

Sylwia Zielińska-Dąbrowska, Paweł F Kukołowicz, Piotr Czebek-Szebek



Minimization of geometric errors in treatment delivery is essential in modern conformal and intensity-modulated techniques.


In this paper two Siemens systems, MVision megavoltage cone beam CT, and CTVision (CT on rails), are compared.

Material and Methods

The reproducibility and uncertainty of the image registration procedure performed with Adaptive Targeting (AT) software were evaluated. Both systems were evaluated by means of simulating the clinical situation with an anthropomorphic phantom in three anatomical sites: head & neck, thorax and pelvis.


The results for two methods of image registration, manual and automatic, were evaluated separately. The manual procedure was used by two users, more and less experienced.


The MVision system and CTVision and the Therapist Adaptive software ensure image registration with the uncertainty of about 2.0 mm (2 standard deviations). In the case of the automatic registration method better reproducibility of image registration was obtained for MVision. For CTVision the necessity of manual identification of the machine isocentre made the registration less reproducible. In the case of MVision, the automatic method was more reproducible than the manual one (smaller dispersion of results). In the case of CTVision, similar results were obtained for both registration methods. In the case of manual registration slightly better reproducibility for CT data acquired at 2 mm slice thickness and 2 mm slice separation than for data acquired at 5 mm slice thickness and 5 mm slice separation were obtained. Similar results of manual registration performed by more and less experienced users were obtained.

Signature: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother, 2009; 14(4) : 122-132

« back