Eric D Morris1, Ahmed I Ghanem2, Milan V Pantelic3, Eleanor M Walker4, Xiaoxia Han5, Carri K Glide-Hurst6. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Cancer Institute, Detroit, Michigan; Department of Radiation Oncology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Cancer Institute, Detroit, Michigan; Department of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt. 3. Department of Radiology, Henry Ford Cancer Institute, Detroit, Michigan. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Cancer Institute, Detroit, Michigan. 5. Department of Public Health Sciences, Henry Ford Cancer Institute, Detroit, Michigan. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Cancer Institute, Detroit, Michigan; Department of Radiation Oncology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan. Electronic address: churst2@hfhs.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Radiation dose to the heart and cardiac substructures has been linked to cardiotoxicities. Because cardiac substructures are poorly visualized on treatment-planning computed tomography (CT) scans, we used the superior soft-tissue contrast of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging to optimize a hybrid MR/CT atlas for substructure dose assessment using CT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty-one patients with left-sided breast cancer underwent a T2-weighted MR imaging scan and noncontrast simulation CT scans. A radiation oncologist delineated 13 substructures (chambers, great vessels, coronary arteries, etc) using MR/CT information via cardiac-confined rigid registration. Ground-truth contours for 20 patients were inputted into an intensity-based deformable registration atlas and applied to 11 validation patients. Automatic segmentations involved using majority vote and Simultaneous Truth and Performance Level Estimation (STAPLE) strategies with 1 to 15 atlas matches. Performance was evaluated via Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), mean distance to agreement, and centroid displacement. Three physicians evaluated segmentation performance via consensus scoring by using a 5-point scale. Dosimetric assessment included measurements of mean heart dose, left ventricular volume receiving 5 Gy, and left anterior descending artery mean and maximum doses. RESULTS: Atlas approaches performed similarly well, with 7 of 13 substructures (heart, chambers, ascending aorta, and pulmonary artery) having DSC >0.75 when averaged over 11 validation patients. Coronary artery segmentations were not successful with the atlas-based approach (mean DSC <0.3). The STAPLE method with 10 matches yielded the highest DSC and the lowest mean distance to agreement for all high-performing substructures (omitting coronary arteries). For the STAPLE method with 10 matches, >50% of all validation contours had centroid displacements <3.0 mm, with the largest shifts in the coronary arteries. Atlas-generated contours had no statistical difference from ground truth for left anterior descending artery maximum dose, mean heart dose, and left ventricular volume receiving 5 Gy (P > .05). Qualitative contour grading showed that 8 substructures required minor modifications. CONCLUSIONS: The hybrid MR/CT atlas provided reliable segmentations of chambers, heart, and great vessels for patients undergoing noncontrast CT, suggesting potential widespread applicability for routine treatment planning.
PURPOSE: Radiation dose to the heart and cardiac substructures has been linked to cardiotoxicities. Because cardiac substructures are poorly visualized on treatment-planning computed tomography (CT) scans, we used the superior soft-tissue contrast of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging to optimize a hybrid MR/CT atlas for substructure dose assessment using CT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty-one patients with left-sided breast cancer underwent a T2-weighted MR imaging scan and noncontrast simulation CT scans. A radiation oncologist delineated 13 substructures (chambers, great vessels, coronary arteries, etc) using MR/CT information via cardiac-confined rigid registration. Ground-truth contours for 20 patients were inputted into an intensity-based deformable registration atlas and applied to 11 validation patients. Automatic segmentations involved using majority vote and Simultaneous Truth and Performance Level Estimation (STAPLE) strategies with 1 to 15 atlas matches. Performance was evaluated via Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), mean distance to agreement, and centroid displacement. Three physicians evaluated segmentation performance via consensus scoring by using a 5-point scale. Dosimetric assessment included measurements of mean heart dose, left ventricular volume receiving 5 Gy, and left anterior descending artery mean and maximum doses. RESULTS: Atlas approaches performed similarly well, with 7 of 13 substructures (heart, chambers, ascending aorta, and pulmonary artery) having DSC >0.75 when averaged over 11 validation patients. Coronary artery segmentations were not successful with the atlas-based approach (mean DSC <0.3). The STAPLE method with 10 matches yielded the highest DSC and the lowest mean distance to agreement for all high-performing substructures (omitting coronary arteries). For the STAPLE method with 10 matches, >50% of all validation contours had centroid displacements <3.0 mm, with the largest shifts in the coronary arteries. Atlas-generated contours had no statistical difference from ground truth for left anterior descending artery maximum dose, mean heart dose, and left ventricular volume receiving 5 Gy (P > .05). Qualitative contour grading showed that 8 substructures required minor modifications. CONCLUSIONS: The hybrid MR/CT atlas provided reliable segmentations of chambers, heart, and great vessels for patients undergoing noncontrast CT, suggesting potential widespread applicability for routine treatment planning.
Authors: S Vennarini; N Fournier-Bidoz; C Aristei; C E de Almeida; V Servois; F Campana; V Mosseri; A Fourquet; Y M Kirova Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2013-02-25 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Vincent M Remouchamps; Nicola Letts; Frank A Vicini; Michael B Sharpe; Larry L Kestin; Peter Y Chen; Alvaro A Martinez; John W Wong Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-07-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Veerle A B van den Bogaard; Bastiaan D P Ta; Arjen van der Schaaf; Angelique B Bouma; Astrid M H Middag; Enja J Bantema-Joppe; Lisanne V van Dijk; Femke B J van Dijk-Peters; Laurens A W Marteijn; Gertruida H de Bock; Johannes G M Burgerhof; Jourik A Gietema; Johannes A Langendijk; John H Maduro; Anne P G Crijns Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-01-17 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Vy Bui; Sujata M Shanbhag; Oscar Levine; Matthew Jacobs; W Patricia Bandettini; Lin-Ching Chang; Marcus Y Chen; Li-Yueh Hsu Journal: IEEE Access Date: 2020-01-15 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Jae Won Jung; Matthew M Mille; Bonnie Ky; Walter Kenworthy; Choonik Lee; Yeon Soo Yeom; Aaron Kwag; Walter Bosch; Shannon MacDonald; Oren Cahlon; Justin E Bekelman; Choonsik Lee Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-08-23
Authors: Eric D Morris; Ahmed I Ghanem; Ming Dong; Milan V Pantelic; Eleanor M Walker; Carri K Glide-Hurst Journal: Med Phys Date: 2019-12-29 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Claudia R Miller; Eric D Morris; Ahmed I Ghanem; Milan V Pantelic; Eleanor M Walker; Carri K Glide-Hurst Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-12-24
Authors: Gerard M Walls; Valentina Giacometti; Aditya Apte; Maria Thor; Conor McCann; Gerard G Hanna; John O'Connor; Joseph O Deasy; Alan R Hounsell; Karl T Butterworth; Aidan J Cole; Suneil Jain; Conor K McGarry Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-07-26
Authors: Eric D Morris; Ahmed I Ghanem; Simeng Zhu; Ming Dong; Milan V Pantelic; Carri K Glide-Hurst Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-04-16
Authors: Eric D Morris; Kate Aldridge; Ahmed I Ghanem; Simeng Zhu; Carri K Glide-Hurst Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2020-10-18 Impact factor: 2.243