G Bednarz1, M B Downes, B W Corn, W J Curran, H W Goldman. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Kimmel Cancer Center of the Jefferson Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, and the Neurosensory Institute of Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107-5097, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to determine the impact of geometric distortions on the spatial accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided stereotactic localization for gamma knife functional radiosurgery. METHOD: The spatial accuracy of MRI was evaluated by comparing stereotactic coordinates of intracranial targets, external fiducials, and anatomic structures defined by computed tomographic and MRI studies of the Radionics skull phantom (Radionics, Inc., Burlington, MA), the Rando head phantom, and 11 patients who underwent gamma knife functional radiosurgery. The distortion in MRI was assessed from computed tomographic and MRI fusion studies for these patients, as well as from MRI studies acquired by swapping the direction of the magnetic field gradients for five patients who underwent gamma knife radiosurgery and three patients who underwent MRI-guided frameless surgery. A follow-up program to compare the location of the created lesion with the intended target complemented the analysis. RESULTS: The average difference between computed tomographic and MRI stereotactic coordinates of external fiducials, intracranial targets, and anatomic landmarks was of the order of 1 pixel size (0.9 x 0.9 x 1 mm3) along the x, y, and z axes. The average linear scaling along these axes as determined by fusion studies was approximately 0.8% and consistent with a single pixel. The follow-up studies, available for seven patients, revealed good agreement between the location of the created lesion and the intended target. CONCLUSION: The spatial accuracy of an MRI-based localization system can be comparable to computed tomography-based localization with the added benefit of MRI resolution. Both machine- and object-related MRI distortions can be reduced to an acceptable level with contemporary scanners, optimized scanning sequences, and distortion-resistant stereotactic instruments.
PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to determine the impact of geometric distortions on the spatial accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided stereotactic localization for gamma knife functional radiosurgery. METHOD: The spatial accuracy of MRI was evaluated by comparing stereotactic coordinates of intracranial targets, external fiducials, and anatomic structures defined by computed tomographic and MRI studies of the Radionics skull phantom (Radionics, Inc., Burlington, MA), the Rando head phantom, and 11 patients who underwent gamma knife functional radiosurgery. The distortion in MRI was assessed from computed tomographic and MRI fusion studies for these patients, as well as from MRI studies acquired by swapping the direction of the magnetic field gradients for five patients who underwent gamma knife radiosurgery and three patients who underwent MRI-guided frameless surgery. A follow-up program to compare the location of the created lesion with the intended target complemented the analysis. RESULTS: The average difference between computed tomographic and MRI stereotactic coordinates of external fiducials, intracranial targets, and anatomic landmarks was of the order of 1 pixel size (0.9 x 0.9 x 1 mm3) along the x, y, and z axes. The average linear scaling along these axes as determined by fusion studies was approximately 0.8% and consistent with a single pixel. The follow-up studies, available for seven patients, revealed good agreement between the location of the created lesion and the intended target. CONCLUSION: The spatial accuracy of an MRI-based localization system can be comparable to computed tomography-based localization with the added benefit of MRI resolution. Both machine- and object-related MRI distortions can be reduced to an acceptable level with contemporary scanners, optimized scanning sequences, and distortion-resistant stereotactic instruments.
Authors: Alec Hughes; Yuexi Huang; Aki Pulkkinen; Michael L Schwartz; Andres M Lozano; Kullervo Hynynen Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2016-10-25 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Jing Yuan; Stephen C K Law; Ka Kin Wong; Gladys G Lo; Michael K M Kam; Wing Hong Kwan; Cindy Xue; Oi Lei Wong; Siu Ki Yu; Kin Yin Cheung Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2021-08-06 Impact factor: 4.553