Literature DB >> 25776205

Quantitative characterizations of ultrashort echo (UTE) images for supporting air-bone separation in the head.

Shu-Hui Hsu1, Yue Cao, Theodore S Lawrence, Christina Tsien, Mary Feng, David M Grodzki, James M Balter.   

Abstract

Accurate separation of air and bone is critical for creating synthetic CT from MRI to support Radiation Oncology workflow. This study compares two different ultrashort echo-time sequences in the separation of air from bone, and evaluates post-processing methods that correct intensity nonuniformity of images and account for intensity gradients at tissue boundaries to improve this discriminatory power. CT and MRI scans were acquired on 12 patients under an institution review board-approved prospective protocol. The two MRI sequences tested were ultra-short TE imaging using 3D radial acquisition (UTE), and using pointwise encoding time reduction with radial acquisition (PETRA). Gradient nonlinearity correction was applied to both MR image volumes after acquisition. MRI intensity nonuniformity was corrected by vendor-provided normalization methods, and then further corrected using the N4itk algorithm. To overcome the intensity-gradient at air-tissue boundaries, spatial dilations, from 0 to 4 mm, were applied to threshold-defined air regions from MR images. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses, by comparing predicted (defined by MR images) versus 'true' regions of air and bone (defined by CT images), were performed with and without residual bias field correction and local spatial expansion. The post-processing corrections increased the areas under the ROC curves (AUC) from 0.944 ± 0.012 to 0.976 ± 0.003 for UTE images, and from 0.850 ± 0.022 to 0.887 ± 0.012 for PETRA images, compared to without corrections. When expanding the threshold-defined air volumes, as expected, sensitivity of air identification decreased with an increase in specificity of bone discrimination, but in a non-linear fashion. A 1 mm air mask expansion yielded AUC increases of 1 and 4% for UTE and PETRA images, respectively. UTE images had significantly greater discriminatory power in separating air from bone than PETRA images. Post-processing strategies improved the discriminatory power of air from bone for both UTE and PETRA images, and reduced the difference between the two imaging sequences. Both post-processed UTE and PETRA images demonstrated sufficient power to discriminate air from bone to support synthetic CT generation from MRI data.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25776205      PMCID: PMC4405190          DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/60/7/2869

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  24 in total

Review 1.  Magnetic resonance: an introduction to ultrashort TE (UTE) imaging.

Authors:  Matthew D Robson; Peter D Gatehouse; Mark Bydder; Graeme M Bydder
Journal:  J Comput Assist Tomogr       Date:  2003 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.826

2.  Magnetic resonance imaging-guided attenuation and scatter corrections in three-dimensional brain positron emission tomography.

Authors:  Habib Zaidi; Marie-Louise Montandon; Daniel O Slosman
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  T1/T2*-weighted MRI provides clinically relevant pseudo-CT density data for the pelvic bones in MRI-only based radiotherapy treatment planning.

Authors:  Mika Kapanen; Mikko Tenhunen
Journal:  Acta Oncol       Date:  2012-06-19       Impact factor: 4.089

4.  A nonparametric method for automatic correction of intensity nonuniformity in MRI data.

Authors:  J G Sled; A P Zijdenbos; A C Evans
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 10.048

5.  MR image-guided portal verification for brain treatment field.

Authors:  F F Yin; Q Gao; H Xie; D F Nelson; Y Yu; W E Kwok; S Totterman; M C Schell; P Rubin
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  1998-02-01       Impact factor: 7.038

6.  A dual model HU conversion from MRI intensity values within and outside of bone segment for MRI-based radiotherapy treatment planning of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Juha Korhonen; Mika Kapanen; Jani Keyriläinen; Tiina Seppälä; Mikko Tenhunen
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Treatment planning of intracranial targets on MRI derived substitute CT data.

Authors:  Joakim H Jonsson; Adam Johansson; Karin Söderström; Thomas Asklund; Tufve Nyholm
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2013-07-03       Impact factor: 6.280

8.  MRI-based treatment planning with pseudo CT generated through atlas registration.

Authors:  Jinsoo Uh; Thomas E Merchant; Yimei Li; Xingyu Li; Chiaho Hua
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  Investigation of a method for generating synthetic CT models from MRI scans of the head and neck for radiation therapy.

Authors:  Shu-Hui Hsu; Yue Cao; Ke Huang; Mary Feng; James M Balter
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2013-11-11       Impact factor: 3.609

10.  MRI-based treatment plan simulation and adaptation for ion radiotherapy using a classification-based approach.

Authors:  Christopher M Rank; Christoph Tremmel; Nora Hünemohr; Armin M Nagel; Oliver Jäkel; Steffen Greilich
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2013-03-06       Impact factor: 3.481

View more
  13 in total

1.  MR image-based synthetic CT for IMRT prostate treatment planning and CBCT image-guided localization.

Authors:  Shupeng Chen; Hong Quan; An Qin; Seonghwan Yee; Di Yan
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2016-05-08       Impact factor: 2.102

Review 2.  Magnetic resonance image guidance in external beam radiation therapy planning and delivery.

Authors:  Ilamurugu Arivarasan; Chandrasekaran Anuradha; Shanmuga Subramanian; Ayyalusamy Anantharaman; Velayudham Ramasubramanian
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2017-06-13       Impact factor: 2.374

3.  Conical ultrashort echo time (UTE) MRI in the evaluation of pediatric acute appendicitis.

Authors:  Albert T Roh; Zhibo Xiao; Joseph Y Cheng; Shreyas S Vasanawala; Andreas M Loening
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2019-01

4.  Pseudo CT Estimation from MRI Using Patch-based Random Forest.

Authors:  Xiaofeng Yang; Yang Lei; Hui-Kuo Shu; Peter Rossi; Hui Mao; Hyunsuk Shim; Walter J Curran; Tian Liu
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2017-02

5.  Robust Estimation of Electron Density From Anatomic Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain Using a Unifying Multi-Atlas Approach.

Authors:  Shangjie Ren; Wendy Hara; Lei Wang; Mark K Buyyounouski; Quynh-Thu Le; Lei Xing; Ruijiang Li
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2016-12-14       Impact factor: 7.038

6.  A female pelvic bone shape model for air/bone separation in support of synthetic CT generation for radiation therapy.

Authors:  Lianli Liu; Yue Cao; Jeffrey A Fessler; Shruti Jolly; James M Balter
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2015-12-01       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  Image-based gradient non-linearity characterization to determine higher-order spherical harmonic coefficients for improved spatial position accuracy in magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Paul T Weavers; Shengzhen Tao; Joshua D Trzasko; Yunhong Shu; Erik J Tryggestad; Jeffrey L Gunter; Kiaran P McGee; Daniel V Litwiller; Ken-Pin Hwang; Matt A Bernstein
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2016-12-27       Impact factor: 2.546

Review 8.  MRI-only treatment planning: benefits and challenges.

Authors:  Amir M Owrangi; Peter B Greer; Carri K Glide-Hurst
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2018-02-26       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  Generating synthetic CTs from magnetic resonance images using generative adversarial networks.

Authors:  Hajar Emami; Ming Dong; Siamak P Nejad-Davarani; Carri K Glide-Hurst
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2018-06-14       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  Using synthetic CT for partial brain radiation therapy: Impact on image guidance.

Authors:  Eric D Morris; Ryan G Price; Joshua Kim; Lonni Schultz; M Salim Siddiqui; Indrin Chetty; Carri Glide-Hurst
Journal:  Pract Radiat Oncol       Date:  2018-04-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.