Jason A Dowling1, Jidi Sun2, Peter Pichler3, David Rivest-Hénault4, Soumya Ghose4, Haylea Richardson3, Chris Wratten5, Jarad Martin5, Jameen Arm3, Leah Best6, Shekhar S Chandra7, Jurgen Fripp4, Frederick W Menk2, Peter B Greer5. 1. CSIRO Australian e-Health Research Centre, Herston, Queensland, Australia; University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia. Electronic address: jason.dowling@csiro.au. 2. University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia. 3. Calvary Mater Newcastle Hospital, Waratah, New South Wales, Australia. 4. CSIRO Australian e-Health Research Centre, Herston, Queensland, Australia. 5. University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia; Calvary Mater Newcastle Hospital, Waratah, New South Wales, Australia. 6. Department of Radiology, Hunter New England Health, New Lambton, New South Wales, Australia. 7. School of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To validate automatic substitute computed tomography CT (sCT) scans generated from standard T2-weighted (T2w) magnetic resonance (MR) pelvic scans for MR-Sim prostate treatment planning. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A Siemens Skyra 3T MR imaging (MRI) scanner with laser bridge, flat couch, and pelvic coil mounts was used to scan 39 patients scheduled for external beam radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. For sCT generation a whole-pelvis MRI scan (1.6 mm 3-dimensional isotropic T2w SPACE [Sampling Perfection with Application optimized Contrasts using different flip angle Evolution] sequence) was acquired. Three additional small field of view scans were acquired: T2w, T2*w, and T1w flip angle 80° for gold fiducials. Patients received a routine planning CT scan. Manual contouring of the prostate, rectum, bladder, and bones was performed independently on the CT and MR scans. Three experienced observers contoured each organ on MRI, allowing interobserver quantification. To generate a training database, each patient CT scan was coregistered to their whole-pelvis T2w using symmetric rigid registration and structure-guided deformable registration. A new multi-atlas local weighted voting method was used to generate automatic contours and sCT results. RESULTS: The mean error in Hounsfield units between the sCT and corresponding patient CT (within the body contour) was 0.6 ± 14.7 (mean ± 1 SD), with a mean absolute error of 40.5 ± 8.2 Hounsfield units. Automatic contouring results were very close to the expert interobserver level (Dice similarity coefficient): prostate 0.80 ± 0.08, bladder 0.86 ± 0.12, rectum 0.84 ± 0.06, bones 0.91 ± 0.03, and body 1.00 ± 0.003. The change in monitor units between the sCT-based plans relative to the gold standard CT plan for the same dose prescription was found to be 0.3% ± 0.8%. The 3-dimensional γ pass rate was 1.00 ± 0.00 (2 mm/2%). CONCLUSIONS: The MR-Sim setup and automatic sCT generation methods using standard MR sequences generates realistic contours and electron densities for prostate cancer radiation therapy dose planning and digitally reconstructed radiograph generation. Crown
PURPOSE: To validate automatic substitute computed tomography CT (sCT) scans generated from standard T2-weighted (T2w) magnetic resonance (MR) pelvic scans for MR-Sim prostate treatment planning. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A Siemens Skyra 3T MR imaging (MRI) scanner with laser bridge, flat couch, and pelvic coil mounts was used to scan 39 patients scheduled for external beam radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. For sCT generation a whole-pelvis MRI scan (1.6 mm 3-dimensional isotropic T2w SPACE [Sampling Perfection with Application optimized Contrasts using different flip angle Evolution] sequence) was acquired. Three additional small field of view scans were acquired: T2w, T2*w, and T1w flip angle 80° for gold fiducials. Patients received a routine planning CT scan. Manual contouring of the prostate, rectum, bladder, and bones was performed independently on the CT and MR scans. Three experienced observers contoured each organ on MRI, allowing interobserver quantification. To generate a training database, each patient CT scan was coregistered to their whole-pelvis T2w using symmetric rigid registration and structure-guided deformable registration. A new multi-atlas local weighted voting method was used to generate automatic contours and sCT results. RESULTS: The mean error in Hounsfield units between the sCT and corresponding patient CT (within the body contour) was 0.6 ± 14.7 (mean ± 1 SD), with a mean absolute error of 40.5 ± 8.2 Hounsfield units. Automatic contouring results were very close to the expert interobserver level (Dice similarity coefficient): prostate 0.80 ± 0.08, bladder 0.86 ± 0.12, rectum 0.84 ± 0.06, bones 0.91 ± 0.03, and body 1.00 ± 0.003. The change in monitor units between the sCT-based plans relative to the gold standard CT plan for the same dose prescription was found to be 0.3% ± 0.8%. The 3-dimensional γ pass rate was 1.00 ± 0.00 (2 mm/2%). CONCLUSIONS: The MR-Sim setup and automatic sCT generation methods using standard MR sequences generates realistic contours and electron densities for prostate cancer radiation therapy dose planning and digitally reconstructed radiograph generation. Crown
Authors: Reza Farjam; Neelam Tyagi; Harini Veeraraghavan; Aditya Apte; Kristen Zakian; Margie A Hunt; Joseph O Deasy Journal: Med Phys Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 4.071
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
Authors: Samaneh Kazemifar; Ana M Barragán Montero; Kevin Souris; Sara T Rivas; Robert Timmerman; Yang K Park; Steve Jiang; Xavier Geets; Edmond Sterpin; Amir Owrangi Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2020-03-26 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Iva Bratova; Petr Paluska; Jakub Grepl; Petra Sykorova; Jan Jansa; Miroslav Hodek; Igor Sirak; Milan Vosmik; Jiri Petera Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2019-02-28
Authors: Ghazal Shafai-Erfani; Yang Lei; Yingzi Liu; Yinan Wang; Tonghe Wang; Jim Zhong; Tian Liu; Mark McDonald; Walter J Curran; Jun Zhou; Hui-Kuo Shu; Xiaofeng Yang Journal: Int J Part Ther Date: 2019-09-30