Juan Yang1, Jing Cai2, Hongjun Wang3, Zheng Chang2, Brian G Czito2, Mustafa R Bashir4, Fang-Fang Yin5. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina; School of Information Science and Engineering, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, China. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 3. School of Information Science and Engineering, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, China. 4. Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. Electronic address: fangfang.yin@duke.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility of a retrospective binning technique for 4-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging (4D-MRI) using body area (BA) as a respiratory surrogate. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Seven patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (4 of 7) or liver metastases (3 of 7) were enrolled in an institutional review board-approved prospective study. All patients were simulated with both computed tomography (CT) and MRI to acquire 3-dimensional and 4D images for treatment planning. Multiple-slice multiple-phase cine-MR images were acquired in the axial plane for 4D-MRI reconstruction. Image acquisition time per slice was set to 10-15 seconds. Single-slice 2-dimensional cine-MR images were also acquired across the center of the tumor in orthogonal planes. Tumor motion trajectories from 4D-MRI, cine-MRI, and 4D-CT were analyzed in the superior-inferior (SI), anterior-posterior (AP), and medial-lateral (ML) directions, respectively. Their correlation coefficients (CC) and differences in tumor motion amplitude were determined. Tumor-to-liver contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) was measured and compared between 4D-CT, 4D-MRI, and conventional T2-weighted fast spin echo MRI. RESULTS: The means (± standard deviations) of CC comparing 4D-MRI with cine-MRI were 0.97 ± 0.03, 0.97 ± 0.02, and 0.99 ± 0.04 in SI, AP, and ML directions, respectively. The mean differences were 0.61 ± 0.17 mm, 0.32 ± 0.17 mm, and 0.14 ± 0.06 mm in SI, AP, and ML directions, respectively. The means of CC comparing 4D-MRI and 4D-CT were 0.95 ± 0.02, 0.94 ± 0.02, and 0.96 ± 0.02 in SI, AP, and ML directions, respectively. The mean differences were 0.74 ± 0.02 mm, 0.33 ± 0.13 mm, and 0.18 ± 0.07 mm in SI, AP, and ML directions, respectively. The mean tumor-to-tissue CNRs were 2.94 ± 1.51, 19.44 ± 14.63, and 39.47 ± 20.81 in 4D-CT, 4D-MRI, and T2-weighted MRI, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The preliminary evaluation of our 4D-MRI technique results in oncologic patients demonstrates its potential usefulness to accurately measure tumor respiratory motion with improved tumor CNR compared with 4D-CT.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility of a retrospective binning technique for 4-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging (4D-MRI) using body area (BA) as a respiratory surrogate. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Seven patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (4 of 7) or liver metastases (3 of 7) were enrolled in an institutional review board-approved prospective study. All patients were simulated with both computed tomography (CT) and MRI to acquire 3-dimensional and 4D images for treatment planning. Multiple-slice multiple-phase cine-MR images were acquired in the axial plane for 4D-MRI reconstruction. Image acquisition time per slice was set to 10-15 seconds. Single-slice 2-dimensional cine-MR images were also acquired across the center of the tumor in orthogonal planes. Tumor motion trajectories from 4D-MRI, cine-MRI, and 4D-CT were analyzed in the superior-inferior (SI), anterior-posterior (AP), and medial-lateral (ML) directions, respectively. Their correlation coefficients (CC) and differences in tumor motion amplitude were determined. Tumor-to-liver contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) was measured and compared between 4D-CT, 4D-MRI, and conventional T2-weighted fast spin echo MRI. RESULTS: The means (± standard deviations) of CC comparing 4D-MRI with cine-MRI were 0.97 ± 0.03, 0.97 ± 0.02, and 0.99 ± 0.04 in SI, AP, and ML directions, respectively. The mean differences were 0.61 ± 0.17 mm, 0.32 ± 0.17 mm, and 0.14 ± 0.06 mm in SI, AP, and ML directions, respectively. The means of CC comparing 4D-MRI and 4D-CT were 0.95 ± 0.02, 0.94 ± 0.02, and 0.96 ± 0.02 in SI, AP, and ML directions, respectively. The mean differences were 0.74 ± 0.02 mm, 0.33 ± 0.13 mm, and 0.18 ± 0.07 mm in SI, AP, and ML directions, respectively. The mean tumor-to-tissue CNRs were 2.94 ± 1.51, 19.44 ± 14.63, and 39.47 ± 20.81 in 4D-CT, 4D-MRI, and T2-weighted MRI, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The preliminary evaluation of our 4D-MRI technique results in oncologic patients demonstrates its potential usefulness to accurately measure tumor respiratory motion with improved tumor CNR compared with 4D-CT.
Authors: P J Keall; G Starkschall; H Shukla; K M Forster; V Ortiz; C W Stevens; S S Vedam; R George; T Guerrero; R Mohan Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2004-05-21 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: John R van Sörnsen de Koste; Suresh Senan; Catharina E Kleynen; Ben J Slotman; Frank J Lagerwaard Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-11-18 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Martin J Murphy; James Balter; Stephen Balter; Jose A BenComo; Indra J Das; Steve B Jiang; C M Ma; Gustavo H Olivera; Raymond F Rodebaugh; Kenneth J Ruchala; Hiroki Shirato; Fang-Fang Yin Journal: Med Phys Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Daniel A Low; Michelle Nystrom; Eugene Kalinin; Parag Parikh; James F Dempsey; Jeffrey D Bradley; Sasa Mutic; Sasha H Wahab; Tareque Islam; Gary Christensen; David G Politte; Bruce R Whiting Journal: Med Phys Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Gig S Mageras; Alex Pevsner; Ellen D Yorke; Kenneth E Rosenzweig; Eric C Ford; Agung Hertanto; Steven M Larson; D Michael Lovelock; Yusuf E Erdi; Sadek A Nehmeh; John L Humm; C Clifton Ling Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-11-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Dongsu Du; Shelton D Caruthers; Carri Glide-Hurst; Daniel A Low; H Harold Li; Sasa Mutic; Yanle Hu Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-03-30 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Yilin Liu; Fang-Fang Yin; Zheng Chang; Brian G Czito; Manisha Palta; Mustafa R Bashir; Yujiao Qin; Jing Cai Journal: Med Phys Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 4.071