Literature DB >> 25979055

Visibility and artifacts of gold fiducial markers used for image guided radiation therapy of pancreatic cancer on MRI.

Oliver J Gurney-Champion1, Eelco Lens2, Astrid van der Horst2, Antonetta C Houweling2, Remy Klaassen3, Jeanin E van Hooft4, Jaap Stoker5, Geertjan van Tienhoven2, Aart J Nederveen5, Arjan Bel2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: In radiation therapy of pancreatic cancer, tumor alignment prior to each treatment fraction is improved when intratumoral gold fiducial markers (from here onwards: markers), which are visible on computed tomography (CT) and cone beam CT, are used. Visibility of these markers on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) might improve image registration between CT and magnetic resonance (MR) images for tumor delineation purposes. However, concomitant image artifacts induced by markers are undesirable. The extent of visibility and artifact size depend on MRI-sequence parameters. The authors' goal was to determine for various markers their potential to be visible and to generate artifacts, using measures that are independent of the MRI-sequence parameters.
METHODS: The authors selected ten different markers suitable for endoscopic placement in the pancreas and placed them into a phantom. The markers varied in diameter (0.28-0.6 mm), shape, and iron content (0%-0.5%). For each marker, the authors calculated T2 (∗)-maps and ΔB0-maps using MRI measurements. A decrease in relaxation time T2 (∗) can cause signal voids, associated with visibility, while a change in the magnetic field B0 can cause signal shifts, which are associated with artifacts. These shifts inhibit accurate tumor delineation. As a measure for potential visibility, the authors used the volume of low T2 (∗), i.e., the volume for which T2 (∗) differed from the background by >15 ms. As a measure for potential artifacts, the authors used the volume for which |ΔB0| > 9.4 × 10(-8) T (4 Hz). To test whether there is a correlation between visibility and artifact size, the authors calculated the Spearman's correlation coefficient (Rs) between the volume of low T2 (∗) and the volume of high |ΔB0|. The authors compared the maps with images obtained using a clinical MR-sequence. Finally, for the best visible marker as well as the marker that showed the smallest artifact, the authors compared the phantom data with in vivo MR-images in four pancreatic cancer patients.
RESULTS: The authors found a strong correlation (Rs = 1.00, p < 0.01) between the volume of low T2 (∗) and the volume with high |ΔB0|. Visibility in clinical MR-images increased with lower T2 (∗). Signal shift artifacts became worse for markers with high |ΔB0|. The marker that was best visible in the phantom, a folded marker with 0.5% iron content, was also visible in vivo, but showed artifacts on diffusion weighted images. The marker with the smallest artifact in the phantom, a small, stretched, ironless marker, was indiscernible on in vivo MR-images.
CONCLUSIONS: Changes in T2 (∗) and ΔB0 are sequence-independent measures for potential visibility and artifact size, respectively. Improved visibility of markers correlates strongly to signal shift artifacts; therefore, marker choice will depend on the clinical purpose. When visibility of the markers is most important, markers that contain iron are optimal, preferably in a folded configuration. For artifact sensitive imaging, small ironless markers are best, preferably in a stretched configuration.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25979055     DOI: 10.1118/1.4918753

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  9 in total

1.  Comparison of MRI visualization between linearly placed iron-containing and non-iron-containing fiducial markers for prostate radiotherapy.

Authors:  Osamu Tanaka; Hisao Komeda; Masayoshi Tamaki; Kensaku Seike; Shota Fujimoto; Eiichi Yama; Shigeki Hirose; Masayuki Matsuo
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-11-28       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Markerless Pancreatic Tumor Target Localization Enabled By Deep Learning.

Authors:  Wei Zhao; Liyue Shen; Bin Han; Yong Yang; Kai Cheng; Diego A S Toesca; Albert C Koong; Daniel T Chang; Lei Xing
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2019-06-13       Impact factor: 7.038

3.  Clinical Implications of a Novel, Iron-containing Fiducial Marker in Radiotherapy for Liver Tumors: An Initial Experience.

Authors:  Hiroshi Doi; Shogo Harui; Hiroki Nakajima; Akira Ando; Keiji Kamino; Masayuki Fujiwara; Takayoshi Nakajima; Shinichi Ikura; Tsukasa Aihara; Naoki Yamanaka
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2017-12-01

4.  Monitoring of breathing motion in image-guided PBS proton therapy: comparative analysis of optical and electromagnetic technologies.

Authors:  Giovanni Fattori; Sairos Safai; Pablo Fernández Carmona; Marta Peroni; Rosalind Perrin; Damien Charles Weber; Antony John Lomax
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2017-03-31       Impact factor: 3.481

5.  Magnetic Resonance-guided High Intensity Focused Ultrasound in the presence of biopsy markers.

Authors:  Charles Mougenot; Chrit Moonen
Journal:  J Ther Ultrasound       Date:  2017-09-20

6.  Evaluation of a Novel Liquid Fiducial Marker, BioXmark®, for Small Animal Image-Guided Radiotherapy Applications.

Authors:  Kathryn H Brown; Mihaela Ghita; Giuseppe Schettino; Kevin M Prise; Karl T Butterworth
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2020-05-18       Impact factor: 6.639

7.  Fiducial markers visibility and artefacts in prostate cancer radiotherapy multi-modality imaging.

Authors:  Sarah O S Osman; Emily Russell; Raymond B King; Karen Crowther; Suneil Jain; Cormac McGrath; Alan R Hounsell; Kevin M Prise; Conor K McGarry
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2019-12-26       Impact factor: 3.481

8.  Comparison of six fit algorithms for the intra-voxel incoherent motion model of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging data of pancreatic cancer patients.

Authors:  Oliver J Gurney-Champion; Remy Klaassen; Martijn Froeling; Sebastiano Barbieri; Jaap Stoker; Marc R W Engelbrecht; Johanna W Wilmink; Marc G Besselink; Arjan Bel; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Aart J Nederveen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-04-04       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 9.  Quantitative imaging for radiotherapy purposes.

Authors:  Oliver J Gurney-Champion; Faisal Mahmood; Marcel van Schie; Robert Julian; Ben George; Marielle E P Philippens; Uulke A van der Heide; Daniela Thorwarth; Kathrine R Redalen
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2020-02-27       Impact factor: 6.280

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.