Wendy Harris1, Lei Ren2, Jing Cai3, You Zhang1, Zheng Chang3, Fang-Fang Yin3. 1. Medical Physics Graduate Program, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 2. Medical Physics Graduate Program, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. Electronic address: lei.ren@duke.edu. 3. Medical Physics Graduate Program, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to develop a techique to generate on-board volumetric cine-magnetic resonance imaging (VC-MRI) using patient prior images, motion modeling, and on-board 2-dimensional cine MRI. METHODS AND MATERIALS: One phase of a 4-dimensional MRI acquired during patient simulation is used as patient prior images. Three major respiratory deformation patterns of the patient are extracted from 4-dimensional MRI based on principal-component analysis. The on-board VC-MRI at any instant is considered as a deformation of the prior MRI. The deformation field is represented as a linear combination of the 3 major deformation patterns. The coefficients of the deformation patterns are solved by the data fidelity constraint using the acquired on-board single 2-dimensional cine MRI. The method was evaluated using both digital extended-cardiac torso (XCAT) simulation of lung cancer patients and MRI data from 4 real liver cancer patients. The accuracy of the estimated VC-MRI was quantitatively evaluated using volume-percent-difference (VPD), center-of-mass-shift (COMS), and target tracking errors. Effects of acquisition orientation, region-of-interest (ROI) selection, patient breathing pattern change, and noise on the estimation accuracy were also evaluated. RESULTS: Image subtraction of ground-truth with estimated on-board VC-MRI shows fewer differences than image subtraction of ground-truth with prior image. Agreement between normalized profiles in the estimated and ground-truth VC-MRI was achieved with less than 6% error for both XCAT and patient data. Among all XCAT scenarios, the VPD between ground-truth and estimated lesion volumes was, on average, 8.43 ± 1.52% and the COMS was, on average, 0.93 ± 0.58 mm across all time steps for estimation based on the ROI region in the sagittal cine images. Matching to ROI in the sagittal view achieved better accuracy when there was substantial breathing pattern change. The technique was robust against noise levels up to SNR = 20. For patient data, average tracking errors were less than 2 mm in all directions for all patients. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary studies demonstrated the feasibility of generating real-time VC-MRI for on-board localization of moving targets in radiation therapy.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to develop a techique to generate on-board volumetric cine-magnetic resonance imaging (VC-MRI) using patient prior images, motion modeling, and on-board 2-dimensional cine MRI. METHODS AND MATERIALS: One phase of a 4-dimensional MRI acquired during patient simulation is used as patient prior images. Three major respiratory deformation patterns of the patient are extracted from 4-dimensional MRI based on principal-component analysis. The on-board VC-MRI at any instant is considered as a deformation of the prior MRI. The deformation field is represented as a linear combination of the 3 major deformation patterns. The coefficients of the deformation patterns are solved by the data fidelity constraint using the acquired on-board single 2-dimensional cine MRI. The method was evaluated using both digital extended-cardiac torso (XCAT) simulation of lung cancerpatients and MRI data from 4 real liver cancerpatients. The accuracy of the estimated VC-MRI was quantitatively evaluated using volume-percent-difference (VPD), center-of-mass-shift (COMS), and target tracking errors. Effects of acquisition orientation, region-of-interest (ROI) selection, patient breathing pattern change, and noise on the estimation accuracy were also evaluated. RESULTS: Image subtraction of ground-truth with estimated on-board VC-MRI shows fewer differences than image subtraction of ground-truth with prior image. Agreement between normalized profiles in the estimated and ground-truth VC-MRI was achieved with less than 6% error for both XCAT and patient data. Among all XCAT scenarios, the VPD between ground-truth and estimated lesion volumes was, on average, 8.43 ± 1.52% and the COMS was, on average, 0.93 ± 0.58 mm across all time steps for estimation based on the ROI region in the sagittal cine images. Matching to ROI in the sagittal view achieved better accuracy when there was substantial breathing pattern change. The technique was robust against noise levels up to SNR = 20. For patient data, average tracking errors were less than 2 mm in all directions for all patients. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary studies demonstrated the feasibility of generating real-time VC-MRI for on-board localization of moving targets in radiation therapy.
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: Ruijiang Li; John H Lewis; Xun Jia; Tianyu Zhao; Weifeng Liu; Sara Wuenschel; James Lamb; Deshan Yang; Daniel A Low; Steve B Jiang Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2011-08-24 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Erik Tryggestad; Aaron Flammang; Russell Hales; Joseph Herman; Junghoon Lee; Todd McNutt; Teboh Roland; Steven M Shea; John Wong Journal: Med Phys Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Alejandra Méndez Romero; Wouter Wunderink; Shahid M Hussain; Jacco A De Pooter; Ben J M Heijmen; Peter C J M Nowak; Joost J Nuyttens; Rene P Brandwijk; Cees Verhoef; Jan N M Ijzermans; Peter C Levendag Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2006 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Alejandra Méndez Romero; Wouter Wunderink; Rob M van Os; Peter J C M Nowak; Ben J M Heijmen; Joost J Nuyttens; Rene P Brandwijk; Cornelis Verhoef; Jan N M Ijzermans; Peter C Levendag Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-11-08 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Julien Dinkel; Christian Hintze; Ralf Tetzlaff; Peter E Huber; Klaus Herfarth; Juergen Debus; Hans U Kauczor; Christian Thieke Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2009-04-24 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Guang Li; Jie Wei; Mo Kadbi; Jason Moody; August Sun; Shirong Zhang; Svetlana Markova; Kristen Zakian; Margie Hunt; Joseph O Deasy Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2017-02-17 Impact factor: 7.038