PURPOSE: To investigate the efficacy of 3.0-T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detecting brain metastases for stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) planning. METHODS AND MATERIALS: All adult patients scheduled for SRS treatment for brain metastases at our institution between October 2005 and January 2008 were eligible for analysis. All patients underwent radiosurgery treatment planning 3.0-T MRI on the day of scheduled radiosurgery and a diagnostic 1.5-T MRI in the days or weeks prior to radiosurgery for comparison. Both scans were interpreted by neuroradiologists who reported their findings in the radiology reports. We performed a retrospective review of the radiology reports to determine the number of brain metastases identified using each MRI system. RESULTS: Of 254 patients scheduled for treatment from October 2005 to January 2008, 138 patients had radiology reports that explicitly described the number of metastases identified on both scans. With a median interval of 17 days (range, 1-82) between scans, the number of metastases detected using 1.5-T MRI system ranged from 1 to 5 and from 1 to 8 using the 3.0 T-MRI system. Twenty-two percent of patients were found to have a greater number of metastases with the 3.0 T-MRI system. The difference in number of metastases detected between the two scans for the entire cohort ranged from 0 to 6. Neither histology (p = 0.52 by chi-sq test) nor time between scans (p = 0.62 by linear regression) were significantly associated with the difference in number of metastases between scans. CONCLUSIONS: The 3.0-T MRI system appears to be superior to a 1.5-T MRI system for detecting brain metastases, which may have significant implications in determining the appropriate treatment modality. Our findings suggest the need for a prospectively designed study to further evaluate the use of a 3.0 T-MRI system for stereotactic radiosurgery planning in the treatment of brain metastases.
PURPOSE: To investigate the efficacy of 3.0-T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detecting brain metastases for stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) planning. METHODS AND MATERIALS: All adult patients scheduled for SRS treatment for brain metastases at our institution between October 2005 and January 2008 were eligible for analysis. All patients underwent radiosurgery treatment planning 3.0-T MRI on the day of scheduled radiosurgery and a diagnostic 1.5-T MRI in the days or weeks prior to radiosurgery for comparison. Both scans were interpreted by neuroradiologists who reported their findings in the radiology reports. We performed a retrospective review of the radiology reports to determine the number of brain metastases identified using each MRI system. RESULTS: Of 254 patients scheduled for treatment from October 2005 to January 2008, 138 patients had radiology reports that explicitly described the number of metastases identified on both scans. With a median interval of 17 days (range, 1-82) between scans, the number of metastases detected using 1.5-T MRI system ranged from 1 to 5 and from 1 to 8 using the 3.0 T-MRI system. Twenty-two percent of patients were found to have a greater number of metastases with the 3.0 T-MRI system. The difference in number of metastases detected between the two scans for the entire cohort ranged from 0 to 6. Neither histology (p = 0.52 by chi-sq test) nor time between scans (p = 0.62 by linear regression) were significantly associated with the difference in number of metastases between scans. CONCLUSIONS: The 3.0-T MRI system appears to be superior to a 1.5-T MRI system for detecting brain metastases, which may have significant implications in determining the appropriate treatment modality. Our findings suggest the need for a prospectively designed study to further evaluate the use of a 3.0 T-MRI system for stereotactic radiosurgery planning in the treatment of brain metastases.
Authors: Courtney A Jensen; Michael D Chan; Thomas P McCoy; J Daniel Bourland; Allan F deGuzman; Thomas L Ellis; Kenneth E Ekstrand; Kevin P McMullen; Michael T Munley; Edward G Shaw; James J Urbanic; Stephen B Tatter Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2010-12-17 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Simon Shek-Man Lo; Elizabeth M Gore; Jeffrey D Bradley; John M Buatti; Isabelle Germano; A Paiman Ghafoori; Mark A Henderson; Gregory J A Murad; Roy A Patchell; Samir H Patel; Jared R Robbins; H Ian Robins; Andrew D Vassil; Franz J Wippold; Michael J Yunes; Gregory M M Videtic Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2014-06-27 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Nam P Nguyen; Mai L Nguyen; Jacqueline Vock; Claire Lemanski; Christine Kerr; Vincent Vinh-Hung; Alexander Chi; Rihan Khan; William Woods; Gabor Altdorfer; Mark D'Andrea; Ulf Karlsson; Russ Hamilton; Fred Ampil Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2013-11-19 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Marcus C Bennett; David B Wiant; Jacob A Gersh; Wendy Dolesh; X Ding; Ryan C M Best; J D Bourland Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2012-07-05 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Sara L Thrower; Karine A Al Feghali; Dershan Luo; Ian Paddick; Ping Hou; Tina Briere; Jing Li; Mary Frances McAleer; Susan L McGovern; Kristina Demas Woodhouse; Debra Nana Yeboa; Kristy K Brock; Caroline Chung Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-04-11