| Literature DB >> 23327682 |
Yanle Hu1, Jacqueline Esthappan, Sasa Mutic, Susan Richardson, Hiram A Gay, Julie K Schwarz, Perry W Grigsby.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For cervical cancer patients treated with MR-guided high dose rate brachytherapy, the accuracy of radiation delivery depends on accurate localization of both tumors and the applicator, e.g. tandem and ovoid. Standard T2-weighted (T2W) MRI has good tumor-tissue contrast. However, it suffers from poor uterus-tandem contrast, which makes the tandem delineation very challenging. In this study, we evaluated the possibility of using proton density weighted (PDW) MRI to improve the definition of titanium tandems.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23327682 PMCID: PMC3556165 DOI: 10.1186/1748-717X-8-16
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Radiat Oncol ISSN: 1748-717X Impact factor: 3.481
Figure 1Comparison of (a) T2W and (b) PDW MRI images for localizing tumors and the applicator. White lines across the tandem on both images were added during the post processing to show the location of signal profiles plotted in Figure 2.
Figure 2Profiles across the tandem along the white lines shown in Figure1 . The PDW image show a uniform signal in the uterus, and a sharper and narrower tandem in the middle compared to the T2W image.
Measured uterus, tandem signal as well as the uterus-tandem contrast
| 1 | 134 | 66 | 0.51 | 217 | 31 | 0.86 |
| 2 | 126 | 89 | 0.29 | 190 | 28 | 0.85 |
| 3 | 95 | 88 | 0.07 | 189 | 55 | 0.71 |
| 4 | 133 | 49 | 0.63 | 189 | 40 | 0.79 |
| 5 | 248 | 128 | 0.48 | 191 | 60 | 0.69 |
| 6 | 148 | 87 | 0.41 | 213 | 38 | 0.82 |
| 7 | 108 | 42 | 0.61 | 225 | 14 | 0.94 |
| 8 | 85 | 82 | 0.04 | 177 | 100 | 0.44 |
| 9 | 172 | 37 | 0.78 | 210 | 41 | 0.80 |
| 10 | 96 | 64 | 0.33 | 123 | 28 | 0.77 |
| AVE±STD | 0.42±0.24 | | 0.77±0.14 | |||
| Paired student t-test | 0.0002 | |||||
Figure 3Comparison of histograms of signal intensity between (a) T2W and (b) PDW MRI. Histograms were obtained based on a small ROI placed around the tip of the tandem. Two peaks corresponding to the uterus and the tandem were overlapped in the T2W image but separable in the PDW image.
Figure 4Comparison of the segmented image using (a) T2W and (b) PDW images. Image segmentation was based on the histogram thresholding technique. Thresholds were 70 and 90 for T2W and PDW images, respectively. The tandem looked nice and complete in the PDW image but quite fragmental in the T2W image.
Measured tandem diameters
| 1 | 30° | 2.0 | 0.42 | 0.37 | 0.075 | 0.025 |
| 2 | 30° | 2.0 | 0.32 | 0.29 | −0.025 | −0.055 |
| 3 | 30° | 2.0 | 0.35 | 0.31 | 0.005 | −0.035 |
| 4 | 45° | 2.0 | 0.62 | 0.53 | 0.275 | 0.185 |
| 5 | 45° | 1.6 | 0.49 | 0.39 | 0.145 | 0.045 |
| 6 | 45° | 2.5 | 0.79 | 0.58 | 0.445 | 0.235 |
| 7 | 45° | 2.5 | 0.61 | 0.53 | 0.265 | 0.185 |
| 8 | 45° | 1.6 | 0.62 | 0.53 | 0.275 | 0.185 |
| 9 | 45° | 2.5 | 0.68 | 0.55 | 0.335 | 0.205 |
| 10 | 45° | 2.0 | 0.52 | 0.39 | 0.175 | 0.045 |
| AVE±STD | 0.54±0.15 | 0.45±0.11 | 0.20±0.15 | 0.10±0.11 | ||
| Paired student t-test | 0.0003 | 0.0003 | ||||
The curvature of the tandem, the physical diameter of the ovoid, the measured diameter of the tandem, as well as the difference between the measured diameter and the physical diameter (0.345 cm) from the T2W and PDW images for each patient are listed.