Literature DB >> 31216529

A novel and rapid approach to estimate patient-specific distortions based on mDIXON MRI.

Steffen Weiss1, Siamak Nejad-Davarani, Holger Eggers, Eliza Orasanu, Steffen Renisch, Carri Glide-Hurst.   

Abstract

While MRI-only radiation treatment planning (RTP) is becoming more widespread, a robust clinical solution for patient-specific distortion corrections is not available. This work explores B 0 mapping based on mDIXON imaging, often performed for MR-only RTP, as an alternative to separate dual-acquisition gradient-recalled echo imaging, with the overarching goal of developing an efficient and robust approach for patient-specific distortion correction. Initial benchmarking was conducted by scanning a phantom and generating B 0 field maps with two approaches: (1) conventional B 0 mapping and (2) experimental mDIXON imaging. Distortion maps were derived from the field maps and compared. The head and neck regions, including brain, of ten healthy volunteers were then evaluated at 1.5 T and 3 T. Distortion maps were again compared between approaches, using difference maps and histogram analysis. Overall, conventional B 0 mapping was well approximated by mDIXON imaging: The distortions of 95% of the voxels in the phantom estimated by mDIXON and conventional B 0 mapping differed by  <0.02 mm (1.5 T) and  <0.04 mm (3 T), while the 95-percentiles of the distortions estimated by conventional B 0 mapping were  <0.06 mm (1.5 T) and  <0.12 mm (3 T). In head and neck the distortions of 99% of the voxels were within  ±0.2 mm at 1.5 T for both approaches and within  ±0.4 mm and  ±0.5 mm at 3 T for mDIXON imaging and conventional B 0 mapping, respectively. The majority of differences in vivo were confined to regions with high spatial variation of the B 0 field, mostly around internal air cavities. For 1.5 T, the mDIXON imaging-based correction alone reduced the 95-percentile of distortions from 0.15 mm to 0.03 mm and within the brain from 0.06 mm to 0.02 mm. Slightly lower reductions were observed at 3 T. In conclusion, mDIXON imaging closely approximated conventional B 0 mapping for patient-specific distortion assessment. Estimates in the brain were in good agreement, and slight differences were observed near air/tissue interfaces in the head and neck. Overall, mDIXON imaging-based B 0 field maps may be advantageous for rapid patient-specific distortion correction without additional imaging.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31216529      PMCID: PMC7259737          DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ab2b0a

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  10 in total

1.  MRI-based attenuation correction for hybrid PET/MRI systems: a 4-class tissue segmentation technique using a combined ultrashort-echo-time/Dixon MRI sequence.

Authors:  Yannick Berker; Jochen Franke; André Salomon; Moritz Palmowski; Henk C W Donker; Yavuz Temur; Felix M Mottaghy; Christiane Kuhl; David Izquierdo-Garcia; Zahi A Fayad; Fabian Kiessling; Volkmar Schulz
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2012-04-13       Impact factor: 10.057

2.  Dual-echo Dixon imaging with flexible choice of echo times.

Authors:  Holger Eggers; Bernhard Brendel; Adri Duijndam; Gwenael Herigault
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 4.668

3.  Characterization, prediction, and correction of geometric distortion in 3 T MR images.

Authors:  Lesley N Baldwin; Keith Wachowicz; Steven D Thomas; Ryan Rivest; B Gino Fallone
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Automatic model-based segmentation of the heart in CT images.

Authors:  Olivier Ecabert; Jochen Peters; Hauke Schramm; Cristian Lorenz; Jens von Berg; Matthew J Walker; Mani Vembar; Mark E Olszewski; Krishna Subramanyan; Guy Lavi; Jürgen Weese
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 10.048

5.  Fast and robust three-dimensional best path phase unwrapping algorithm.

Authors:  Hussein S Abdul-Rahman; Munther A Gdeisat; David R Burton; Michael J Lalor; Francis Lilley; Christopher J Moore
Journal:  Appl Opt       Date:  2007-09-10       Impact factor: 1.980

6.  Dosimetric and workflow evaluation of first commercial synthetic CT software for clinical use in pelvis.

Authors:  Neelam Tyagi; Sandra Fontenla; Jing Zhang; Michelle Cloutier; Mo Kadbi; Jim Mechalakos; Michael Zelefsky; Joe Deasy; Margie Hunt
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2016-12-16       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  Automatic three-dimensional correlation of CT-CT, CT-MRI, and CT-SPECT using chamfer matching.

Authors:  M van Herk; H M Kooy
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Phantom-based characterization of distortion on a magnetic resonance imaging simulator for radiation oncology.

Authors:  Ke Colin Huang; Yue Cao; Umar Baharom; James M Balter
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2016-01-06       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  Patient-induced susceptibility effect on geometric distortion of clinical brain MRI for radiation treatment planning on a 3T scanner.

Authors:  H Wang; J Balter; Y Cao
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2013-01-10       Impact factor: 3.609

10.  Per-organ assessment of subject-induced susceptibility distortion for MR-only male pelvis treatment planning.

Authors:  Carri Glide-Hurst; Siamak Nejad-Davarani; Steffen Weiss; Weili Zheng; Indrin J Chetty; Steffen Renisch
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2018-08-15       Impact factor: 3.481

  10 in total
  2 in total

Review 1.  Integrated MRI-guided radiotherapy - opportunities and challenges.

Authors:  Paul J Keall; Caterina Brighi; Carri Glide-Hurst; Gary Liney; Paul Z Y Liu; Suzanne Lydiard; Chiara Paganelli; Trang Pham; Shanshan Shan; Alison C Tree; Uulke A van der Heide; David E J Waddington; Brendan Whelan
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2022-04-19       Impact factor: 65.011

2.  Task group 284 report: magnetic resonance imaging simulation in radiotherapy: considerations for clinical implementation, optimization, and quality assurance.

Authors:  Carri K Glide-Hurst; Eric S Paulson; Kiaran McGee; Neelam Tyagi; Yanle Hu; James Balter; John Bayouth
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2021-07       Impact factor: 4.071

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.