Literature DB >> 25803177

MRI simulation: end-to-end testing for prostate radiation therapy using geometric pelvic MRI phantoms.

Jidi Sun1, Jason Dowling, Peter Pichler, Fred Menk, David Rivest-Henault, Jonathan Lambert, Joel Parker, Jameen Arm, Leah Best, Jarad Martin, James W Denham, Peter B Greer.   

Abstract

To clinically implement MRI simulation or MRI-alone treatment planning requires comprehensive end-to-end testing to ensure an accurate process. The purpose of this study was to design and build a geometric phantom simulating a human male pelvis that is suitable for both CT and MRI scanning and use it to test geometric and dosimetric aspects of MRI simulation including treatment planning and digitally reconstructed radiograph (DRR) generation.A liquid filled pelvic shaped phantom with simulated pelvic organs was scanned in a 3T MRI simulator with dedicated radiotherapy couch-top, laser bridge and pelvic coil mounts. A second phantom with the same external shape but with an internal distortion grid was used to quantify the distortion of the MR image. Both phantoms were also CT scanned as the gold-standard for both geometry and dosimetry. Deformable image registration was used to quantify the MR distortion. Dose comparison was made using a seven-field IMRT plan developed on the CT scan with the fluences copied to the MR image and recalculated using bulk electron densities. Without correction the maximum distortion of the MR compared with the CT scan was 7.5 mm across the pelvis, while this was reduced to 2.6 and 1.7 mm by the vendor's 2D and 3D correction algorithms, respectively. Within the locations of the internal organs of interest, the distortion was <1.5 and <1 mm with 2D and 3D correction algorithms, respectively. The dose at the prostate isocentre calculated on CT and MRI images differed by 0.01% (1.1 cGy). Positioning shifts were within 1 mm when setup was performed using MRI generated DRRs compared to setup using CT DRRs.The MRI pelvic phantom allows end-to-end testing of the MRI simulation workflow with comparison to the gold-standard CT based process. MRI simulation was found to be geometrically accurate with organ dimensions, dose distributions and DRR based setup within acceptable limits compared to CT.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25803177     DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/60/8/3097

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


  14 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Geometric distortion in magnetic resonance imaging systems assessed using an open-source plugin for scientific image analysis.

Authors:  Takahiro Aoyama; Hidetoshi Shimizu; Ikuo Shimizu; Atsushi Teramoto; Naoki Kaneda; Kazuhiko Nakamura; Masaru Nakamura; Takeshi Kodaira
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2018-09-25

Review 3.  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

4.  Image Guided Radiation Therapy Using Synthetic Computed Tomography Images in Brain Cancer.

Authors:  Ryan G Price; Joshua P Kim; Weili Zheng; Indrin J Chetty; Carri Glide-Hurst
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2016-03-10       Impact factor: 7.038

5.  Dosimetric evaluation of magnetic resonance-generated synthetic CT for radiation treatment of rectal cancer.

Authors:  Hesheng Wang; Kevin Du; Juliet Qu; Hersh Chandarana; Indra J Das
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-01-05       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  MRI geometric distortion: Impact on tangential whole-breast IMRT.

Authors:  Amy Walker; Peter Metcalfe; Gary Liney; Vikneswary Batumalai; Kylie Dundas; Carri Glide-Hurst; Geoff P Delaney; Miriam Boxer; Mei Ling Yap; Jason Dowling; David Rivest-Henault; Elise Pogson; Lois Holloway
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 2.102

7.  Quantitative analysis of image quality for acceptance and commissioning of an MRI simulator with a semiautomatic method.

Authors:  Xinyuan Chen; Jianrong Dai
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2018-03-24       Impact factor: 2.102

8.  Measuring geometric accuracy in magnetic resonance imaging with 3D-printed phantom and nonrigid image registration.

Authors:  Katri Nousiainen; Teemu Mäkelä
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  2019-10-23       Impact factor: 2.310

9.  Validation of a deformable MRI to CT registration algorithm employing same day planning MRI for surrogate analysis.

Authors:  Kyle R Padgett; Radka Stoyanova; Sara Pirozzi; Perry Johnson; Jon Piper; Nesrin Dogan; Alan Pollack
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2018-02-23       Impact factor: 2.102

10.  A Comparison of the Distortion in the Same Field MRI and MR-Linac System With a 3D Printed Phantom.

Authors:  Xuechun Liu; Zhenjiang Li; Yi Rong; Minsong Cao; Hongyu Li; Chuntao Jia; Liting Shi; Weizhao Lu; Guanzhong Gong; Yong Yin; Jianfeng Qiu
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-06-03       Impact factor: 6.244

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.