PURPOSE: To evaluate whether MR thermometry is sufficiently fast, accurate, and spatially resolved for monitoring the thermal safety of nonablative pulsed high intensity ultrasound (pHIFU) treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A combination of real MR thermometry data and modeling was used to analyze the effects of temporal and spatial averaging as well as noise on the peak temperatures and thermal doses that would be measured by MR thermometry. RESULTS: MR thermometry systematically underestimates the temperature and thermal doses during pHIFU treatment. Small underestimates of peak temperature can lead to large underestimates of thermal dose. Spatial averaging errors are small for ratios of pixel dimension to heating zone radius less than 0.25, which may be achieved by reducing the voxel size or steering the acoustic beam. Thermal dose might also be underestimated for very short, high power pulses due to temporal averaging. A simple correction factor based on the applied power and duty cycle may be applied to determine the upper bound of this effect. CONCLUSION: The temperature and thermal dose measured using MR thermometry during pulsed HIFU treatment is probably sufficient in most instances. Simple corrections may be used to calculate an upper bound where this is a critical factor.
PURPOSE: To evaluate whether MR thermometry is sufficiently fast, accurate, and spatially resolved for monitoring the thermal safety of nonablative pulsed high intensity ultrasound (pHIFU) treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A combination of real MR thermometry data and modeling was used to analyze the effects of temporal and spatial averaging as well as noise on the peak temperatures and thermal doses that would be measured by MR thermometry. RESULTS: MR thermometry systematically underestimates the temperature and thermal doses during pHIFU treatment. Small underestimates of peak temperature can lead to large underestimates of thermal dose. Spatial averaging errors are small for ratios of pixel dimension to heating zone radius less than 0.25, which may be achieved by reducing the voxel size or steering the acoustic beam. Thermal dose might also be underestimated for very short, high power pulses due to temporal averaging. A simple correction factor based on the applied power and duty cycle may be applied to determine the upper bound of this effect. CONCLUSION: The temperature and thermal dose measured using MR thermometry during pulsed HIFU treatment is probably sufficient in most instances. Simple corrections may be used to calculate an upper bound where this is a critical factor.
Authors: Michaelann Shortencarier Tartis; Jennifer McCallan; Aaron F H Lum; Rachel LaBell; Susanne M Stieger; Terry O Matsunaga; Katherine W Ferrara Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: Baudouin Denis de Senneville; Charles Mougenot; Bruno Quesson; Iulius Dragonu; Nicolas Grenier; Chrit T W Moonen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2007-05-22 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Kristin M Dittmar; Jianwu Xie; Finie Hunter; Cameron Trimble; Monica Bur; Victor Frenkel; King C P Li Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-03-29 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: William W Roberts; Timothy L Hall; Kimberly Ives; J Stuart Wolf; J Brian Fowlkes; Charles A Cain Journal: J Urol Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Victor Frenkel; Jay Oberoi; Michael J Stone; Melissa Park; Cheri Deng; Bradford J Wood; Ziv Neeman; McDonald Horne; King C P Li Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-02-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Hermes A S Kamimura; Christian Aurup; Ethan V Bendau; Niloufar Saharkhiz; Min Gon Kim; Elisa E Konofagou Journal: IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control Date: 2019-09-11 Impact factor: 2.725
Authors: Yao Sun; Xiaobing Xiong; Darpan Pandya; Youngkyoo Jung; Akiva Mintz; Satoru Hayasaka; Thaddeus J Wadas; King C P Li Journal: J Control Release Date: 2017-04-12 Impact factor: 9.776