OBJECTIVES: To improve the integration of MRI with radiotherapy treatment planning, our department fabricated a flat couch top for our MR scanner. Setting up using this couch top meant that the patients were physically higher up in the scanner and, posteriorly, a gap was introduced between the patient and radiofrequency coil. METHODS: Phantom measurements were performed to assess the quantitative impact on image quality. A phantom was set up with and without the flat couch insert in place, and measurements of image uniformity and signal to noise were made. To assess clinical impact, six patients with pelvic cancer were recruited and scanned on both couch types. The image quality of pairs of scans was assessed by two consultant radiologists. RESULTS: The use of the flat couch insert led to a drop in image signal to noise of approximately 14%. Uniformity in the anteroposterior direction was affected the most, with little change in right-to-left and feet-to-head directions. All six patients were successfully scanned on the flat couch, although one patient had to be positioned with their arms by their sides. The image quality scores showed no statistically significant change between scans with and without the flat couch in place. CONCLUSION: Although the quantitative performance of the coil is affected by the integration of a flat couch top, there is no discernible deterioration of diagnostic image quality, as assessed by two consultant radiologists. Although the flat couch insert moved patients higher in the bore of the scanner, all patients in the study were successfully scanned.
OBJECTIVES: To improve the integration of MRI with radiotherapy treatment planning, our department fabricated a flat couch top for our MR scanner. Setting up using this couch top meant that the patients were physically higher up in the scanner and, posteriorly, a gap was introduced between the patient and radiofrequency coil. METHODS: Phantom measurements were performed to assess the quantitative impact on image quality. A phantom was set up with and without the flat couch insert in place, and measurements of image uniformity and signal to noise were made. To assess clinical impact, six patients with pelvic cancer were recruited and scanned on both couch types. The image quality of pairs of scans was assessed by two consultant radiologists. RESULTS: The use of the flat couch insert led to a drop in image signal to noise of approximately 14%. Uniformity in the anteroposterior direction was affected the most, with little change in right-to-left and feet-to-head directions. All six patients were successfully scanned on the flat couch, although one patient had to be positioned with their arms by their sides. The image quality scores showed no statistically significant change between scans with and without the flat couch in place. CONCLUSION: Although the quantitative performance of the coil is affected by the integration of a flat couch top, there is no discernible deterioration of diagnostic image quality, as assessed by two consultant radiologists. Although the flat couch insert moved patients higher in the bore of the scanner, all patients in the study were successfully scanned.
Authors: Robert C Krempien; Kai Schubert; Dietmar Zierhut; Michael C Steckner; Martina Treiber; Wolfgang Harms; Ulrich Mende; Detlev Latz; Michael Wannenmacher; Frederik Wenz Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Roel J H M Steenbakkers; Joop C Duppen; Anja Betgen; Heidi Th Lotz; Peter Remeijer; Isabelle Fitton; Peter J C M Nowak; Marcel van Herk; Coen R N Rasch Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-12-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Mikael Karlsson; Magnus G Karlsson; Tufve Nyholm; Christopher Amies; Björn Zackrisson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: B W Raaymakers; J J W Lagendijk; J Overweg; J G M Kok; A J E Raaijmakers; E M Kerkhof; R W van der Put; I Meijsing; S P M Crijns; F Benedosso; M van Vulpen; C H W de Graaff; J Allen; K J Brown Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2009-05-19 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Young K Lee; Marc Bollet; Geoffrey Charles-Edwards; Maggie A Flower; Martin O Leach; Helen McNair; Elizabeth Moore; Carl Rowbottom; Steve Webb Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Jidi Sun; Jason A Dowling; Peter Pichler; Joel Parker; Jarad Martin; Peter Stanwell; Jameen Arm; Fred Menk; Peter B Greer Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2015-03-08 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Ewa Juresic; Gary P Liney; Robba Rai; Joseph Descalar; Mark Lee; Karen Wong; Daniel Moses; Jacqueline Veera; Lois Holloway Journal: J Med Radiat Sci Date: 2018-03
Authors: Carri K Glide-Hurst; Eric S Paulson; Kiaran McGee; Neelam Tyagi; Yanle Hu; James Balter; John Bayouth Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-07 Impact factor: 4.071