Julian Emmerich1, Frederik B Laun1,2, Asja Pfaffenberger3, Rebecca Schilling4, Michael Denoix1, Florian Maier1, Florian Sterzing5,6,7, Tilman Bostel5,6,7, Sina Straub1. 1. Department of Medical Physics in Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. 2. Institute of Radiology, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany. 3. Department of Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. 4. University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany. 5. Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 7. National Center for Research in Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the extent of MR image distortions in the pelvis caused by susceptibility-induced field inhomogeneities in MR images in the context of a study on MR-guided radiotherapy. METHODS: Using a high-bandwidth double-echo gradient echo sequence, field maps and distortion maps of the pelvis were calculated and evaluated for 219 exams (92 of female and 127 of male patients) to investigate patient-related image distortions caused by susceptibility differences in an ongoing study on MR-guided radiotherapy. The evaluation of distortions in the regions "rectum", "prostate", "cervix", and in a reference region in the gluteus maximus was based on masks drawn by two readers. RESULTS: Distortions in the prostate and cervix were smaller than 0.03 px (0.1 mm) for 99% of voxels, and reached a maximum value of 0.09 px (0.3 mm). In the reference region, maximum distortions were smaller than in the prostate and cervix. CONCLUSIONS: Using a geometric uncertainty of 0.2 px (0.6 mm) in margin definition for organs that are close to the rectum like the prostate and the cervix would be a cautious choice to account for susceptibility-induced distortions that can arise during MR-based treatment guidance for the imaging setting used in this study. Since distortions are inversely proportional to the readout bandwidth of the sequence, safety margins need to be adapted adequately. Additional sources of image distortions like gradient nonlinearities are not included in our margin recommendations and should be considered separately.
PURPOSE: To investigate the extent of MR image distortions in the pelvis caused by susceptibility-induced field inhomogeneities in MR images in the context of a study on MR-guided radiotherapy. METHODS: Using a high-bandwidth double-echo gradient echo sequence, field maps and distortion maps of the pelvis were calculated and evaluated for 219 exams (92 of female and 127 of male patients) to investigate patient-related image distortions caused by susceptibility differences in an ongoing study on MR-guided radiotherapy. The evaluation of distortions in the regions "rectum", "prostate", "cervix", and in a reference region in the gluteus maximus was based on masks drawn by two readers. RESULTS: Distortions in the prostate and cervix were smaller than 0.03 px (0.1 mm) for 99% of voxels, and reached a maximum value of 0.09 px (0.3 mm). In the reference region, maximum distortions were smaller than in the prostate and cervix. CONCLUSIONS: Using a geometric uncertainty of 0.2 px (0.6 mm) in margin definition for organs that are close to the rectum like the prostate and the cervix would be a cautious choice to account for susceptibility-induced distortions that can arise during MR-based treatment guidance for the imaging setting used in this study. Since distortions are inversely proportional to the readout bandwidth of the sequence, safety margins need to be adapted adequately. Additional sources of image distortions like gradient nonlinearities are not included in our margin recommendations and should be considered separately.
Authors: William A Hall; Eric S Paulson; Uulke A van der Heide; Clifton D Fuller; B W Raaymakers; Jan J W Lagendijk; X Allen Li; David A Jaffray; Laura A Dawson; Beth Erickson; Marcel Verheij; Kevin J Harrington; Arjun Sahgal; Percy Lee; Parag J Parikh; Michael F Bassetti; Clifford G Robinson; Bruce D Minsky; Ananya Choudhury; Robert J H A Tersteeg; Christopher J Schultz Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2019-10-12 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: M Wiesmueller; W Wuest; M S May; S Ellmann; R Heiss; M Saake; R Janka; M Uder; F B Laun Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-04-29 Impact factor: 4.966
Authors: Christopher Kurz; Giulia Buizza; Guillaume Landry; Florian Kamp; Moritz Rabe; Chiara Paganelli; Guido Baroni; Michael Reiner; Paul J Keall; Cornelis A T van den Berg; Marco Riboldi Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-05-05 Impact factor: 3.481