Rachel R Bitton1, Taylor D Webb2, Kim Butts Pauly1, Pejman Ghanouni1. 1. School of Medicine, Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA. 2. Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate thermal dose volume (TDV) and non-perfused volume (NPV) of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) treatments in patients with soft tissue tumors, and describe a method for MR thermal dosimetry using a baseline reference. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Agreement between TDV and immediate post treatment NPV was evaluated from MRgFUS treatments of five patients with biopsy-proven desmoid tumors. Thermometry data (gradient echo, 3T) were analyzed over the entire course of the treatments to discern temperature errors in the standard approach. The technique searches previously acquired baseline images for a match using 2D normalized cross-correlation and a weighted mean of phase difference images. Thermal dose maps and TDVs were recalculated using the matched baseline and compared to NPV. RESULTS: TDV and NPV showed between 47%-91% disagreement, using the standard immediate baseline method for calculating TDV. Long-term thermometry showed a nonlinear local temperature accrual, where peak additional temperature varied between 4-13°C (mean = 7.8°C) across patients. The prior baseline method could be implemented by finding a previously acquired matching baseline 61% ± 8% (mean ± SD) of the time. We found 7%-42% of the disagreement between TDV and NPV was due to errors in thermometry caused by heat accrual. For all patients, the prior baseline method increased the estimated treatment volume and reduced the discrepancies between TDV and NPV (P = 0.023). CONCLUSION: This study presents a mismatch between in-treatment and post treatment efficacy measures. The prior baseline approach accounts for local heating and improves the accuracy of thermal dose-predicted volume.
PURPOSE: To investigate thermal dose volume (TDV) and non-perfused volume (NPV) of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) treatments in patients with soft tissue tumors, and describe a method for MR thermal dosimetry using a baseline reference. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Agreement between TDV and immediate post treatment NPV was evaluated from MRgFUS treatments of five patients with biopsy-proven desmoid tumors. Thermometry data (gradient echo, 3T) were analyzed over the entire course of the treatments to discern temperature errors in the standard approach. The technique searches previously acquired baseline images for a match using 2D normalized cross-correlation and a weighted mean of phase difference images. Thermal dose maps and TDVs were recalculated using the matched baseline and compared to NPV. RESULTS: TDV and NPV showed between 47%-91% disagreement, using the standard immediate baseline method for calculating TDV. Long-term thermometry showed a nonlinear local temperature accrual, where peak additional temperature varied between 4-13°C (mean = 7.8°C) across patients. The prior baseline method could be implemented by finding a previously acquired matching baseline 61% ± 8% (mean ± SD) of the time. We found 7%-42% of the disagreement between TDV and NPV was due to errors in thermometry caused by heat accrual. For all patients, the prior baseline method increased the estimated treatment volume and reduced the discrepancies between TDV and NPV (P = 0.023). CONCLUSION: This study presents a mismatch between in-treatment and post treatment efficacy measures. The prior baseline approach accounts for local heating and improves the accuracy of thermal dose-predicted volume.
Authors: Nathan McDannold; Clare M Tempany; Fiona M Fennessy; Minna J So; Frank J Rybicki; Elizabeth A Stewart; Ferenc A Jolesz; Kullervo Hynynen Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: T Leslie; R Ritchie; R Illing; G Ter Haar; R Phillips; M Middleton; Bm Bch; F Wu; D Cranston Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2012-06-14 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: J Rabinovici; Y Inbar; A Revel; Y Zalel; J M Gomori; Y Itzchak; E Schiff; S Yagel Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: Andrew B Holbrook; Pejman Ghanouni; Juan M Santos; Charles Dumoulin; Yoav Medan; Kim Butts Pauly Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Allison Payne; Robb Merrill; Emilee Minalga; J Rock Hadley; Henrik Odeen; Lorne W Hofstetter; Sara Johnson; Christine Tunon de Lara; Sophie Auriol; Stephanie Recco; Erik Dumont; Dennis L Parker; Jean Palussiere Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2021-02-19 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Marcia Costa; Carolina Fernandes; Matt Eames; Arik Hananel; John P Mugler; Jhosep Huaromo; Jack B Yang; Jaime Mata Journal: Tomography Date: 2022-09-03