Wendy Harris1, Fang-Fang Yin1,2,3, Jing Cai1,2,4, Lei Ren1,2. 1. Medical Physics Graduate Program, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. 3. Medical Physics Graduate Program, Duke Kunshan University, Kunshan 215316, China. 4. Department of Health Technology and Informatics, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon 999077, Hong Kong, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to improve on-board volumetric cine magnetic resonance imaging (VC-MRI) using multi-slice undersampled cine images reconstructed using spatio-temporal k-space data, patient prior 4D-MRI, motion modeling (MM) and free-form deformation (FD) for real-time 3D target verification of liver and lung radiotherapy. METHODS: A previous method was developed to generate on-board VC-MRI by deforming prior MRI images based on a MM and a single-slice on-board 2D-cine image. The two major improvements over the previous method are: (I) FD was introduced to estimate VC-MRI to correct for inaccuracies in the MM; (II) multi-slice undersampled 2D-cine images reconstructed by a k-t SLR reconstruction method were used for FD-based estimation to maintain the temporal resolution while improving the accuracy of VC-MRI. The method was evaluated using XCAT lung simulation and four liver patients' data. RESULTS: For XCAT, VC-MRI estimated using ten undersampled sagittal 2D-cine MRIs resulted in volume percent difference/volume dice coefficient/center-of-mass shift of 9.77%±3.71%/0.95±0.02/0.75±0.26 mm among all scenarios based on estimation with MM and FD. Adding FD optimization improved VC-MRI accuracy substantially for scenarios with anatomical changes. For patient data, the mean tumor tracking errors were 0.64±0.51, 0.62±0.47 and 0.24±0.24 mm along the superior-inferior (SI), anterior-posterior (AP) and lateral directions, respectively, across all liver patients. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to improve VC-MRI accuracy while maintaining high temporal resolution using FD and multi-slice undersampled 2D cine images for real-time 3D target verification. 2020 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to improve on-board volumetric cine magnetic resonance imaging (VC-MRI) using multi-slice undersampled cine images reconstructed using spatio-temporal k-space data, patient prior 4D-MRI, motion modeling (MM) and free-form deformation (FD) for real-time 3D target verification of liver and lung radiotherapy. METHODS: A previous method was developed to generate on-board VC-MRI by deforming prior MRI images based on a MM and a single-slice on-board 2D-cine image. The two major improvements over the previous method are: (I) FD was introduced to estimate VC-MRI to correct for inaccuracies in the MM; (II) multi-slice undersampled 2D-cine images reconstructed by a k-t SLR reconstruction method were used for FD-based estimation to maintain the temporal resolution while improving the accuracy of VC-MRI. The method was evaluated using XCAT lung simulation and four liver patients' data. RESULTS: For XCAT, VC-MRI estimated using ten undersampled sagittal 2D-cine MRIs resulted in volume percent difference/volume dice coefficient/center-of-mass shift of 9.77%±3.71%/0.95±0.02/0.75±0.26 mm among all scenarios based on estimation with MM and FD. Adding FD optimization improved VC-MRI accuracy substantially for scenarios with anatomical changes. For patient data, the mean tumor tracking errors were 0.64±0.51, 0.62±0.47 and 0.24±0.24 mm along the superior-inferior (SI), anterior-posterior (AP) and lateral directions, respectively, across all liver patients. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to improve VC-MRI accuracy while maintaining high temporal resolution using FD and multi-slice undersampled 2D cine images for real-time 3D target verification. 2020 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
Authors: Felix A Breuer; Martin Blaimer; Robin M Heidemann; Matthias F Mueller; Mark A Griswold; Peter M Jakob Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Paul J Keall; Gig S Mageras; James M Balter; Richard S Emery; Kenneth M Forster; Steve B Jiang; Jeffrey M Kapatoes; Daniel A Low; Martin J Murphy; Brad R Murray; Chester R Ramsey; Marcel B Van Herk; S Sastry Vedam; John W Wong; Ellen Yorke Journal: Med Phys Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Michael Velec; Joanne L Moseley; Stina Svensson; Björn Hårdemark; David A Jaffray; Kristy K Brock Journal: Med Phys Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Julien Dinkel; Christian Hintze; Ralf Tetzlaff; Peter E Huber; Klaus Herfarth; Juergen Debus; Hans U Kauczor; Christian Thieke Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2009-04-24 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Yilin Liu; Fang-Fang Yin; Zheng Chang; Brian G Czito; Manisha Palta; Mustafa R Bashir; Yujiao Qin; Jing Cai Journal: Med Phys Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Henna Kavaluus; Lauri Koivula; Eero Salli; Tiina Seppälä; Kauko Saarilahti; Mikko Tenhunen Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2022-04-12 Impact factor: 2.243
Authors: Alisha Duetschler; Grzegorz Bauman; Oliver Bieri; Philippe C Cattin; Stefanie Ehrbar; Georg Engin-Deniz; Alina Giger; Mirjana Josipovic; Christoph Jud; Miriam Krieger; Damien Nguyen; Gitte F Persson; Rares Salomir; Damien C Weber; Antony J Lomax; Ye Zhang Journal: Med Phys Date: 2022-03-17 Impact factor: 4.506