Ryan G Price1, Joshua P Kim2, Weili Zheng2, Indrin J Chetty1, Carri Glide-Hurst3. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan; Department of Radiation Oncology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan; Department of Radiation Oncology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan. Electronic address: churst2@hfhs.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The development of synthetic computed tomography (CT) (synCT) derived from magnetic resonance (MR) images supports MR-only treatment planning. We evaluated the accuracy of synCT and synCT-generated digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) relative to CT and determined their performance for image guided radiation therapy (IGRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Magnetic resonance simulation (MR-SIM) and CT simulation (CT-SIM) images were acquired of an anthropomorphic skull phantom and 12 patient brain cancer cases. SynCTs were generated using fluid attenuation inversion recovery, ultrashort echo time, and Dixon data sets through a voxel-based weighted summation of 5 tissue classifications. The DRRs were generated from the phantom synCT, and geometric fidelity was assessed relative to CT-generated DRRs through bounding box and landmark analysis. An offline retrospective analysis was conducted to register cone beam CTs (n=34) to synCTs and CTs using automated rigid registration in the treatment planning system. Planar MV and KV images (n=37) were rigidly registered to synCT and CT DRRs using an in-house script. Planar and volumetric registration reproducibility was assessed and margin differences were characterized by the van Herk formalism. RESULTS: Bounding box and landmark analysis of phantom synCT DRRs were within 1 mm of CT DRRs. Absolute planar registration shift differences ranged from 0.0 to 0.7 mm for phantom DRRs on all treatment platforms and from 0.0 to 0.4 mm for volumetric registrations. For patient planar registrations, the mean shift differences were 0.4 ± 0.5 mm (range, -0.6 to 1.6 mm), 0.0 ± 0.5 mm (range, -0.9 to 1.2 mm), and 0.1 ± 0.3 mm (range, -0.7 to 0.6 mm) for the superior-inferior (S-I), left-right (L-R), and anterior-posterior (A-P) axes, respectively. The mean shift differences in volumetric registrations were 0.6 ± 0.4 mm (range, -0.2 to 1.6 mm), 0.2 ± 0.4 mm (range, -0.3 to 1.2 mm), and 0.2 ± 0.3 mm (range, -0.2 to 1.2 mm) for the S-I, L-R, and A-P axes, respectively. The CT-SIM and synCT derived margins were <0.3 mm different. CONCLUSION: DRRs generated by synCT were in close agreement with CT-SIM. Planar and volumetric image registrations to synCT-derived targets were comparable with CT for phantom and patients. This validation is the next step toward MR-only planning for the brain.
PURPOSE: The development of synthetic computed tomography (CT) (synCT) derived from magnetic resonance (MR) images supports MR-only treatment planning. We evaluated the accuracy of synCT and synCT-generated digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) relative to CT and determined their performance for image guided radiation therapy (IGRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Magnetic resonance simulation (MR-SIM) and CT simulation (CT-SIM) images were acquired of an anthropomorphic skull phantom and 12 patientbrain cancer cases. SynCTs were generated using fluid attenuation inversion recovery, ultrashort echo time, and Dixon data sets through a voxel-based weighted summation of 5 tissue classifications. The DRRs were generated from the phantom synCT, and geometric fidelity was assessed relative to CT-generated DRRs through bounding box and landmark analysis. An offline retrospective analysis was conducted to register cone beam CTs (n=34) to synCTs and CTs using automated rigid registration in the treatment planning system. Planar MV and KV images (n=37) were rigidly registered to synCT and CT DRRs using an in-house script. Planar and volumetric registration reproducibility was assessed and margin differences were characterized by the van Herk formalism. RESULTS: Bounding box and landmark analysis of phantom synCT DRRs were within 1 mm of CT DRRs. Absolute planar registration shift differences ranged from 0.0 to 0.7 mm for phantom DRRs on all treatment platforms and from 0.0 to 0.4 mm for volumetric registrations. For patient planar registrations, the mean shift differences were 0.4 ± 0.5 mm (range, -0.6 to 1.6 mm), 0.0 ± 0.5 mm (range, -0.9 to 1.2 mm), and 0.1 ± 0.3 mm (range, -0.7 to 0.6 mm) for the superior-inferior (S-I), left-right (L-R), and anterior-posterior (A-P) axes, respectively. The mean shift differences in volumetric registrations were 0.6 ± 0.4 mm (range, -0.2 to 1.6 mm), 0.2 ± 0.4 mm (range, -0.3 to 1.2 mm), and 0.2 ± 0.3 mm (range, -0.2 to 1.2 mm) for the S-I, L-R, and A-P axes, respectively. The CT-SIM and synCT derived margins were <0.3 mm different. CONCLUSION: DRRs generated by synCT were in close agreement with CT-SIM. Planar and volumetric image registrations to synCT-derived targets were comparable with CT for phantom and patients. This validation is the next step toward MR-only planning for the brain.
Authors: Stephen M Smith; Mark Jenkinson; Mark W Woolrich; Christian F Beckmann; Timothy E J Behrens; Heidi Johansen-Berg; Peter R Bannister; Marilena De Luca; Ivana Drobnjak; David E Flitney; Rami K Niazy; James Saunders; John Vickers; Yongyue Zhang; Nicola De Stefano; J Michael Brady; Paul M Matthews Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2004 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Mark W Woolrich; Saad Jbabdi; Brian Patenaude; Michael Chappell; Salima Makni; Timothy Behrens; Christian Beckmann; Mark Jenkinson; Stephen M Smith Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2008-11-13 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Catherine D G Hines; Huanzhou Yu; Ann Shimakawa; Charles A McKenzie; Jean H Brittain; Scott B Reeder Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 4.813
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: Yabo Fu; Hao Zhang; Eric D Morris; Carri K Glide-Hurst; Suraj Pai; Alberto Traverso; Leonard Wee; Ibrahim Hadzic; Per-Ivar Lønne; Chenyang Shen; Tian Liu; Xiaofeng Yang Journal: IEEE Trans Radiat Plasma Med Sci Date: 2021-08-24
Authors: Tsuicheng D Chiu; Tatsuya J Arai; James Campbell Iii; Steve B Jiang; Ralph P Mason; Strahinja Stojadinovic Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-05-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: David Wiant; Matthew Manning; Kyle Koch; Jacqueline Maurer; Lane Hayes; Han Liu; Qingyang Shang; Benjamin Sintay Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 2.102