Tarraf Torfeh1, Rabih Hammoud2, Gregory Perkins2, Maeve McGarry2, Souha Aouadi2, Azim Celik3, Ken-Pin Hwang4, Joseph Stancanello3, Primoz Petric2, Noora Al-Hammadi2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, National Center for Cancer Care & Research (NCCCR), Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar. Electronic address: ttorfeh@hamad.qa. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, National Center for Cancer Care & Research (NCCCR), Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar. 3. GE Healthcare. 4. Department of Imaging Physics, the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer, Houston, TX.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop a method for the assessment and characterization of 3D geometric distortion as part of routine quality assurance for MRI scanners commissioned for Radiation Therapy planning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, the in-plane and through-plane geometric distortions on a 1.5T GE MRI-SIM unit are characterized and the 2D and 3D correction algorithms provided by the vendor are evaluated. We used a phantom developed by GE Healthcare that covers a large field of view of 500mm, and consists of layers of foam embedded with a matrix of ellipsoidal markers. An in-house Java-based software module was developed to automatically assess the geometric distortion by calculating the center of each marker using the center of mass method, correcting of gross rotation errors and comparing the corrected positions with a CT gold standard data set. Spatial accuracy of typical pulse sequences used in RT planning was assessed (2D T1/T2 FSE, 3D CUBE, T1 SPGR) using the software. The accuracy of vendor specific geometric distortion correction (GDC) algorithms was quantified by measuring distortions before and after the application of the 2D and 3D correction algorithms. RESULTS: Our algorithm was able to accurately calculate geometric distortion with sub-pixel precision. For all typical MR sequences used in Radiotherapy, the vendor's GDC was able to substantially reduce the distortions. Our results showed also that the impact of the acquisition produced a maximum variation of 0.2mm over a radial distance of 200mm. It has been shown that while the 2D correction algorithm remarkably reduces the in-plane geometric distortion, 3D geometric distortion further reduced the geometric distortion by correcting both in-plane and through-plane distortions in all acquisitions. CONCLUSION: The presented methods represent a valuable tool for routine quality assurance of MR applications that require stringent spatial accuracy assessment such as radiotherapy. The phantom used in this study provides three dimensional arrays of control points. These tools and the detailed results can be also used for developing new geometric distortion correction algorithms or improving the existing ones.
OBJECTIVE: To develop a method for the assessment and characterization of 3D geometric distortion as part of routine quality assurance for MRI scanners commissioned for Radiation Therapy planning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, the in-plane and through-plane geometric distortions on a 1.5T GE MRI-SIM unit are characterized and the 2D and 3D correction algorithms provided by the vendor are evaluated. We used a phantom developed by GE Healthcare that covers a large field of view of 500mm, and consists of layers of foam embedded with a matrix of ellipsoidal markers. An in-house Java-based software module was developed to automatically assess the geometric distortion by calculating the center of each marker using the center of mass method, correcting of gross rotation errors and comparing the corrected positions with a CT gold standard data set. Spatial accuracy of typical pulse sequences used in RT planning was assessed (2D T1/T2 FSE, 3D CUBE, T1 SPGR) using the software. The accuracy of vendor specific geometric distortion correction (GDC) algorithms was quantified by measuring distortions before and after the application of the 2D and 3D correction algorithms. RESULTS: Our algorithm was able to accurately calculate geometric distortion with sub-pixel precision. For all typical MR sequences used in Radiotherapy, the vendor's GDC was able to substantially reduce the distortions. Our results showed also that the impact of the acquisition produced a maximum variation of 0.2mm over a radial distance of 200mm. It has been shown that while the 2D correction algorithm remarkably reduces the in-plane geometric distortion, 3D geometric distortion further reduced the geometric distortion by correcting both in-plane and through-plane distortions in all acquisitions. CONCLUSION: The presented methods represent a valuable tool for routine quality assurance of MR applications that require stringent spatial accuracy assessment such as radiotherapy. The phantom used in this study provides three dimensional arrays of control points. These tools and the detailed results can be also used for developing new geometric distortion correction algorithms or improving the existing ones.
Authors: José Richart; Vicente Carmona-Meseguer; Teresa García-Martínez; Antonio Herreros; Antonio Otal; Santiago Pellejero; Ana Tornero-López; José Pérez-Calatayud Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2018-07-23
Authors: Domen Močnik; Bulat Ibragimov; Lei Xing; Primož Strojan; Boštjan Likar; Franjo Pernuš; Tomaž Vrtovec Journal: Phys Med Date: 2018-06-19 Impact factor: 2.685
Authors: Max Siekmann; Thomas Lothes; Ralph König; Christian Rainer Wirtz; Jan Coburger Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2018-01-24 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Tyler M Seibert; Nathan S White; Gwe-Ya Kim; Vitali Moiseenko; Carrie R McDonald; Nikdokht Farid; Hauke Bartsch; Joshua Kuperman; Roshan Karunamuni; Deborah Marshall; Dominic Holland; Parag Sanghvi; Daniel R Simpson; Arno J Mundt; Anders M Dale; Jona A Hattangadi-Gluth Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2016-06-01
Authors: Jordan M Slagowski; Yao Ding; Manik Aima; Zhifei Wen; Clifton D Fuller; Caroline Chung; J Matthew Debnam; Ken-Pin Hwang; Mo Kadbi; Janio Szklaruk; Jihong Wang Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2020-09-28 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Carri K Glide-Hurst; Eric S Paulson; Kiaran McGee; Neelam Tyagi; Yanle Hu; James Balter; John Bayouth Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-07 Impact factor: 4.071