Veit Mengling1, Christoph Bert1, Rosalind Perrin1, Siti Masitho1, Thomas Weissmann1, Sina Mansoorian1, Hadi Siavooshhaghighi1, Rolf Janka2, Sylvain Doussin3, Melanie Habatsch3, Rainer Fietkau1, Florian Putz4. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Universitätsstraße 27, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. 2. Institute of Radiology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Maximiliansplatz 3, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. 3. Siemens Healthineers, Henkestraße 127, 91052, Erlangen, Germany. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Universitätsstraße 27, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. florian.putz@uk-erlangen.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To share our experiences in implementing a dedicated magnetic resonance (MR) scanner for radiotherapy (RT) treatment planning using a novel coil setup for brain imaging in treatment position as well as to present developed core protocols with sequences specifically tuned for brain and prostate RT treatment planning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our novel setup consists of two large 18-channel flexible coils and a specifically designed wooden mask holder mounted on a flat tabletop overlay, which allows patients to be measured in treatment position with mask immobilization. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of this setup was compared to the vendor-provided flexible coil RT setup and the standard setup for diagnostic radiology. The occurrence of motion artifacts was quantified. To develop magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocols, we formulated site- and disease-specific clinical objectives. RESULTS: Our novel setup showed mean SNR of 163 ± 28 anteriorly, 104 ± 23 centrally, and 78 ± 14 posteriorly compared to 84 ± 8 and 102 ± 22 anteriorly, 68 ± 6 and 95 ± 20 centrally, and 56 ± 7 and 119 ± 23 posteriorly for the vendor-provided and diagnostic setup, respectively. All differences were significant (p > 0.05). Image quality of our novel setup was judged suitable for contouring by expert-based assessment. Motion artifacts were found in 8/60 patients in the diagnostic setup, whereas none were found for patients in the RT setup. Site-specific core protocols were designed to minimize distortions while optimizing tissue contrast and 3D resolution according to indication-specific objectives. CONCLUSION: We present a novel setup for high-quality imaging in treatment position that allows use of several immobilization systems enabling MR-only workflows, which could reduce unnecessary dose and registration inaccuracies.
PURPOSE: To share our experiences in implementing a dedicated magnetic resonance (MR) scanner for radiotherapy (RT) treatment planning using a novel coil setup for brain imaging in treatment position as well as to present developed core protocols with sequences specifically tuned for brain and prostate RT treatment planning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our novel setup consists of two large 18-channel flexible coils and a specifically designed wooden mask holder mounted on a flat tabletop overlay, which allows patients to be measured in treatment position with mask immobilization. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of this setup was compared to the vendor-provided flexible coil RT setup and the standard setup for diagnostic radiology. The occurrence of motion artifacts was quantified. To develop magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocols, we formulated site- and disease-specific clinical objectives. RESULTS: Our novel setup showed mean SNR of 163 ± 28 anteriorly, 104 ± 23 centrally, and 78 ± 14 posteriorly compared to 84 ± 8 and 102 ± 22 anteriorly, 68 ± 6 and 95 ± 20 centrally, and 56 ± 7 and 119 ± 23 posteriorly for the vendor-provided and diagnostic setup, respectively. All differences were significant (p > 0.05). Image quality of our novel setup was judged suitable for contouring by expert-based assessment. Motion artifacts were found in 8/60 patients in the diagnostic setup, whereas none were found for patients in the RT setup. Site-specific core protocols were designed to minimize distortions while optimizing tissue contrast and 3D resolution according to indication-specific objectives. CONCLUSION: We present a novel setup for high-quality imaging in treatment position that allows use of several immobilization systems enabling MR-only workflows, which could reduce unnecessary dose and registration inaccuracies.
Authors: Mark A Griswold; Peter M Jakob; Robin M Heidemann; Mathias Nittka; Vladimir Jellus; Jianmin Wang; Berthold Kiefer; Axel Haase Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Lauri Koivula; Mika Kapanen; Tiina Seppälä; Juhani Collan; Jason A Dowling; Peter B Greer; Christian Gustafsson; Adalsteinn Gunnlaugsson; Lars E Olsson; Leonard Wee; Juha Korhonen Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2017-10-30 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: M T Freitag; S Bickelhaupt; C Ziener; K Meier-Hein; J P Radtke; J Mosebach; T-A Kuder; H-P Schlemmer; F B Laun Journal: Radiologe Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 0.635
Authors: Matteo Maspero; Mark H F Savenije; Anna M Dinkla; Peter R Seevinck; Martijn P W Intven; Ina M Jurgenliemk-Schulz; Linda G W Kerkmeijer; Cornelis A T van den Berg Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2018-09-10 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Scott Hanvey; Mark McJury; Lye Mun Tho; Martin Glegg; Maureen Thomson; Derek Grose; Allan James; Mohammed Rizwanullah; Claire Paterson; John Foster Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2013-05-28 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Stefano Mandija; Federico D'Agata; Robin J M Navest; Alessandro Sbrizzi; Rob H N Tijssen; Marielle E P Philippens; Cornelis P J Raaijmakers; Enrica Seravalli; Joost J C Verhoeff; Jan J W Lagendijk; Cornelis A T van den Berg Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Matthias Guckenberger; Wolfgang W Baus; Oliver Blanck; Stephanie E Combs; Jürgen Debus; Rita Engenhart-Cabillic; Tobias Gauer; Anca L Grosu; Daniela Schmitt; Stephanie Tanadini-Lang; Christos Moustakis Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 3.621