Online first
Research paper
Published online: 2024-04-29

open access

Page views 77
Article views/downloads 22
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Optimized target delineation procedure for the radiosurgery treatment of ventricular tachycardia: observer-independent accuracy

Jan Hecko12, Lukas Knybel34, Marian Rybar5, Marek Penhaker2, Otakar Jiravský16, Radek Neuwirth16, Marek Sramko7, Jana Haskova7, Josef Kautzner7, Jakub Cvek43


Background: Part of the current stereotactic arrythmia radioablation (STAR) workflow is transfer of findings from the electroanatomic mapping (EAM) to computed tomography (CT).

Here, we analyzed inter- and intraobserver variation in a modified EAM-CT registration using automatic registration algorithms designed to yield higher robustness.

Materials and methods:This work is based on data of 10 patients who had previously undergone STAR.

Two observers participated in this study: (1) an electrophysiologist technician (cardiology) with substatial experience in EAM-CT merge, and (2) a clinical engineer (radiotherapy) with minimum experience with EAM-CT merge.

EAM-CT merge consists of 3 main steps: segmentation of left ventricle from CT (CT LV), registration of the CT LV and EAM, clinical target volume (CTV) delineation from EAM specific points.

Mean Hausdorff distance (MHD), Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) and absolute difference in Center of Gravity (CoG) were used to assess intra/interobserver variability.


Intraobserver variability: The mean DSC and MHD for 3 CT LVs altogether was 0.92 ± 0.01 and 1.49 ± 0.23 mm. The mean DSC and MHD for 3 CTVs altogether was 0.82 ± 0.06 and 0.71 ± 0.22 mm.

Interobserver variability: Segmented CT LVs showed great similarity (mean DSC of 0.91 ± 0.01, MHD of 1.86 ± 0.47 mm). The mean DSC comparing CTVs from both observers was 0.81 ± 0.11 and MHD was 0.87 ± 0.45 mm.

Conclusions: The high interobserver similarity of segmented LVs and delineated CTVs confirmed the robustness of the proposed method. Even an inexperienced user can perform a precise EAM-CT merge following workflow instructions.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file


  1. Cronin E, Bogun F, Maury P, et al. 2019 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS expert consensus statement on catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias. EP Europace. 2019; 21(8): 1143–1144.
  2. Tokuda M, Kojodjojo P, Tung S, et al. Acute failure of catheter ablation for ventricular tachycardia due to structural heart disease: causes and significance. J Am Heart Assoc. 2013; 2(3): e000072.
  3. Haskova J, Sramko M, Cvek J, et al. Stereotactic Radiotherapy in the Management of Ventricular Tachycardias: More Questions than Answers? Card Electrophysiol Clin. 2022; 14(4): 779–792.
  4. Grehn M, Mandija S, Miszczyk M, et al. STereotactic Arrhythmia Radioablation (STAR): the Standardized Treatment and Outcome Platform for Stereotactic Therapy Of Re-entrant tachycardia by a Multidisciplinary consortium ( and review of current patterns of STAR practice in Europe. Europace. 2023; 25(4): 1284–1295.
  5. van der Ree MH, Blanck O, Limpens J, et al. Cardiac radioablation-A systematic review. Heart Rhythm. 2020; 17(8): 1381–1392.
  6. Seuntjens J. Prescribing, Recording, and Reporting of Stereotactic Treatments with Small Photon Beams, ICRU 2017; Report 91 (No. IAEA-CN--250). 2017.
  7. Loo BW, Soltys SG, Wang L, et al. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for the treatment of refractory cardiac ventricular arrhythmia. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2015; 8(3): 748–750.
  8. Neuwirth R, Cvek J, Knybel L, et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery for ablation of ventricular tachycardia. Europace. 2019; 21(7): 1088–1095.
  9. Abdel-Kafi S, Sramko M, Omara S, et al. Accuracy of electroanatomical mapping-guided cardiac radiotherapy for ventricular tachycardia: pitfalls and solutions. Europace. 2021; 23(12): 1989–1997.
  10. Abdel-Kafi S, de Ridder M, de Riva M, et al. Integration of Electroanatomical Mapping With Imaging to Guide Radiotherapy of VT Substrates With High Accuracy. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2020; 6(7): 874–876.
  11. Brett CL, Cook JA, Aboud AA, et al. Novel workflow for conversion of catheter-based electroanatomic mapping to DICOM imaging for noninvasive radioablation of ventricular tachycardia. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2021; 11(1): 84–88.
  12. Hohmann S, Henkenberens C, Zormpas C, et al. A novel open-source software-based high-precision workflow for target definition in cardiac radioablation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2020; 31(10): 2689–2695.
  13. Peichl P, Sramko M, Cvek J, et al. A case report of successful elimination of recurrent ventricular tachycardia by repeated stereotactic radiotherapy: the importance of accurate target volume delineation. Eur Heart J Case Rep. 2021; 5(2): ytaa516.
  14. Zhu Ji, Chen X, Yang B, et al. Evaluation of Automatic Segmentation Model With Dosimetric Metrics for Radiotherapy of Esophageal Cancer. Front Oncol. 2020; 10: 564737.
  15. Huttenlocher DP, Klanderman GA, Rucklidge WJ. Comparing images using the Hausdorff distance. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence. 1993; 15(9): 850–863.
  16. Wang H, Barbhaiya CR, Yuan Ye, et al. A Tool to Integrate Electrophysiological Mapping for Cardiac Radioablation of Ventricular Tachycardia. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2023; 8(6): 101272.
  17. Oh S, Liu EH, Trombetta MG, et al. A target definition based on electroanatomic maps for stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation. Phys Med. 2023; 115: 103160.
  18. Brownstein J, Afzal M, Okabe T, et al. Method and Atlas to Enable Targeting for Cardiac Radioablation Employing the American Heart Association Segmented Model. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021; 111(1): 178–185.
  19. Brock KK, Mutic S, McNutt TR, et al. Use of image registration and fusion algorithms and techniques in radiotherapy: Report of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 132. Med Phys. 2017; 44(7): e43–e76.

Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy