Wensha Yang1, Zhaoyang Fan2, Richard Tuli3, Zixin Deng2, Jianing Pang2, Ashley Wachsman4, Robert Reznik3, Howard Sandler3, Debiao Li2, Benedick A Fraass3. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. Electronic address: wensha.yang@cshs.org. 2. Biomedical Imaging Research Institute, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. 4. Department of Imaging, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To apply a novel self-gating k-space sorted 4-dimensional MRI (SG-KS-4D-MRI) method to overcome limitations due to anisotropic resolution and rebinning artifacts and to monitor pancreatic tumor motion. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ten patients were imaged using 4D-CT, cine 2-dimensional MRI (2D-MRI), and the SG-KS-4D-MRI, which is a spoiled gradient recalled echo sequence with 3-dimensional radial-sampling k-space projections and 1-dimensional projection-based self-gating. Tumor volumes were defined on all phases in both 4D-MRI and 4D-CT and then compared. RESULTS: An isotropic resolution of 1.56 mm was achieved in the SG-KS-4D-MRI images, which showed superior soft-tissue contrast to 4D-CT and appeared to be free of stitching artifacts. The tumor motion trajectory cross-correlations (mean ± SD) between SG-KS-4D-MRI and cine 2D-MRI in superior-inferior, anterior-posterior, and medial-lateral directions were 0.93 ± 0.03, 0.83 ± 0.10, and 0.74 ± 0.18, respectively. The tumor motion trajectories cross-correlations between SG-KS-4D-MRI and 4D-CT in superior-inferior, anterior-posterior, and medial-lateral directions were 0.91 ± 0.06, 0.72 ± 0.16, and 0.44 ± 0.24, respectively. The average standard deviation of gross tumor volume calculated from the 10 breathing phases was 0.81 cm(3) and 1.02 cm(3) for SG-KS-4D-MRI and 4D-CT, respectively (P=.012). CONCLUSIONS: A novel SG-KS-4D-MRI acquisition method capable of reconstructing rebinning artifact-free, high-resolution 4D-MRI images was used to quantify pancreas tumor motion. The resultant pancreatic tumor motion trajectories agreed well with 2D-cine-MRI and 4D-CT. The pancreatic tumor volumes shown in the different phases for the SG-KS-4D-MRI were statistically significantly more consistent than those in the 4D-CT.
PURPOSE: To apply a novel self-gating k-space sorted 4-dimensional MRI (SG-KS-4D-MRI) method to overcome limitations due to anisotropic resolution and rebinning artifacts and to monitor pancreatic tumor motion. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ten patients were imaged using 4D-CT, cine 2-dimensional MRI (2D-MRI), and the SG-KS-4D-MRI, which is a spoiled gradient recalled echo sequence with 3-dimensional radial-sampling k-space projections and 1-dimensional projection-based self-gating. Tumor volumes were defined on all phases in both 4D-MRI and 4D-CT and then compared. RESULTS: An isotropic resolution of 1.56 mm was achieved in the SG-KS-4D-MRI images, which showed superior soft-tissue contrast to 4D-CT and appeared to be free of stitching artifacts. The tumor motion trajectory cross-correlations (mean ± SD) between SG-KS-4D-MRI and cine2D-MRI in superior-inferior, anterior-posterior, and medial-lateral directions were 0.93 ± 0.03, 0.83 ± 0.10, and 0.74 ± 0.18, respectively. The tumor motion trajectories cross-correlations between SG-KS-4D-MRI and 4D-CT in superior-inferior, anterior-posterior, and medial-lateral directions were 0.91 ± 0.06, 0.72 ± 0.16, and 0.44 ± 0.24, respectively. The average standard deviation of gross tumor volume calculated from the 10 breathing phases was 0.81 cm(3) and 1.02 cm(3) for SG-KS-4D-MRI and 4D-CT, respectively (P=.012). CONCLUSIONS: A novel SG-KS-4D-MRI acquisition method capable of reconstructing rebinning artifact-free, high-resolution 4D-MRI images was used to quantify pancreas tumor motion. The resultant pancreatic tumor motion trajectories agreed well with 2D-cine-MRI and 4D-CT. The pancreatic tumor volumes shown in the different phases for the SG-KS-4D-MRI were statistically significantly more consistent than those in the 4D-CT.
Authors: Erik Tryggestad; Aaron Flammang; Sarah Han-Oh; Russell Hales; Joseph Herman; Todd McNutt; Teboh Roland; Steven M Shea; John Wong Journal: Med Phys Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Bjorn Stemkens; Rob H N Tijssen; Baudouin D de Senneville; Hanne D Heerkens; Marco van Vulpen; Jan J W Lagendijk; Cornelis A T van den Berg Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-01-13 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Christopher Nelson; Peter Balter; Rodolfo C Morice; Kara Bucci; Lei Dong; Susan Tucker; Sastry Vedam; Joe Y Chang; George Starkschall Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-02-04 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
Authors: Duncan den Boer; Johannes K Veldman; Geertjan van Tienhoven; Arjan Bel; Zdenko van Kesteren Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-09-26 Impact factor: 3.481