D Wegener1, D Zips1,2, D Thorwarth3,2, J Weiß4, A E Othman4, U Grosse4, M Notohamiprodjo4, K Nikolaou4, A C Müller1. 1. a Department of Radiation Oncology , University Hospital Tübingen, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen , Tübingen , Germany. 2. d German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) , Partner Site Tübingen; and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) , Heidelberg , Germany. 3. b Section for Biomedical Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology , University Hospital Tübingen , Tübingen , Germany. 4. c Department of Radiology , University Hospital Tübingen, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen , Tübingen , Germany.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To increase precision of radiation treatment (RT) delivery in prostate cancer, MRI-based RT as well as the use of fiducials like gold markers (GMs) have shown promising results. Their combined use is currently under investigation in clinical trials. Here, we aimed to evaluate a workflow of image registration based on GMs between CT and MRI as well as weekly MRI-MRI adaption based on T2 TSE sequence. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A gel-phantom with two inserted GMs was scanned with CT and three different MR-scanners of 1.5 and 3 T (T2 TSE and T1 VIBE-Dixon, isotropic, voxel size 2 × 2 × 2 mm). After image fusion, deviations for fiducial and gel match were measured and artifacts were evaluated. Additionally, CT-MRI-match deviations and MRI-MRI-match deviations of 10 Patients from the M-basePro study using GMs were assessed. RESULTS: GMs were visible in all imaging modalities. The outer gel contours were matched with <1 mm deviation, contour volumes varied between 0 and 1%. The deviations of the GMs were less than 2 mm in any direction of MRI/CT. Shifts of peripherally or centrally located GMs were randomly distributed. The average MRI-CT-match precision of 10 patients with GMs was 1.9 mm (range 1.1-3.1 mm). CONCLUSIONS: Match inaccuracies for GMs between reference CT and voxel-isotropic T2-TSE sequences are small. Spatial deviations of CT- and MR-contoured fiducials were less than 2 mm, i.e., below SLT of the applied modalities. In patients, the average CT-MRI-match precision for GMs was 1.9 mm supporting their use in MR-guided high precision RT.
INTRODUCTION: To increase precision of radiation treatment (RT) delivery in prostate cancer, MRI-based RT as well as the use of fiducials like gold markers (GMs) have shown promising results. Their combined use is currently under investigation in clinical trials. Here, we aimed to evaluate a workflow of image registration based on GMs between CT and MRI as well as weekly MRI-MRI adaption based on T2 TSE sequence. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A gel-phantom with two inserted GMs was scanned with CT and three different MR-scanners of 1.5 and 3 T (T2 TSE and T1 VIBE-Dixon, isotropic, voxel size 2 × 2 × 2 mm). After image fusion, deviations for fiducial and gel match were measured and artifacts were evaluated. Additionally, CT-MRI-match deviations and MRI-MRI-match deviations of 10 Patients from the M-basePro study using GMs were assessed. RESULTS:GMs were visible in all imaging modalities. The outer gel contours were matched with <1 mm deviation, contour volumes varied between 0 and 1%. The deviations of the GMs were less than 2 mm in any direction of MRI/CT. Shifts of peripherally or centrally located GMs were randomly distributed. The average MRI-CT-match precision of 10 patients with GMs was 1.9 mm (range 1.1-3.1 mm). CONCLUSIONS: Match inaccuracies for GMs between reference CT and voxel-isotropic T2-TSE sequences are small. Spatial deviations of CT- and MR-contoured fiducials were less than 2 mm, i.e., below SLT of the applied modalities. In patients, the average CT-MRI-match precision for GMs was 1.9 mm supporting their use in MR-guided high precision RT.
Authors: Daniel Wegener; Bernhard Berger; Zhoulika Outtagarts; Daniel Zips; Frank Paulsen; Martin Bleif; Daniela Thorwarth; Markus Alber; Oliver Dohm; Arndt-Christian Müller Journal: Radiol Oncol Date: 2020-12-22 Impact factor: 2.991
Authors: Adalsteinn Gunnlaugsson; Emilia Persson; Christian Gustafsson; Elisabeth Kjellén; Petra Ambolt; Silke Engelholm; Per Nilsson; Lars E Olsson Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-03-20
Authors: Simon K B Spohn; Ilias Sachpazidis; Rolf Wiehle; Benedikt Thomann; August Sigle; Peter Bronsert; Juri Ruf; Matthias Benndorf; Nils H Nicolay; Tanja Sprave; Anca L Grosu; Dimos Baltas; Constantinos Zamboglou Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-05-14 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Daniel Wegener; Daniel Zips; Cihan Gani; Simon Boeke; Konstantin Nikolaou; Ahmed E Othman; Haidara Almansour; Frank Paulsen; Arndt-Christian Müller Journal: Radiologe Date: 2021-07-23 Impact factor: 0.635