Lisa Klaassen , Corné Haasjes , Martijn Hol , Patricia Cambraia Lopes , Kees Spruijt , Christal van de Steeg-Henzen , Khanh Vu , Pauline Bakker , Coen Rasch , Berit Verbist , Jan-Willem Beenakker
{"title":"Geometrical accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for ocular proton therapy planning","authors":"Lisa Klaassen , Corné Haasjes , Martijn Hol , Patricia Cambraia Lopes , Kees Spruijt , Christal van de Steeg-Henzen , Khanh Vu , Pauline Bakker , Coen Rasch , Berit Verbist , Jan-Willem Beenakker","doi":"10.1016/j.phro.2024.100598","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background & purpose</h3><p>Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used in treatment preparation of ocular proton therapy, but its spatial accuracy might be limited by geometric distortions due to susceptibility artefacts. A correct geometry of the MR images is paramount since it defines where the dose will be delivered. In this study, we assessed the geometrical accuracy of ocular MRI.</p></div><div><h3>Materials & methods</h3><p>A dedicated ocular 3 T MRI protocol, with localized shimming and increased gradients, was compared to computed tomography (CT) and X-ray images in a phantom and in 15 uveal melanoma patients. The MRI protocol contained three-dimensional T2-weighted and T1-weighted sequences with an isotropic reconstruction resolution of 0.3–0.4 mm. Tantalum clips were identified by three observers and clip-clip distances were compared between T2-weighted and T1-weighted MRI, CT and X-ray images for the phantom and between MRI and X-ray images for the patients.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Interobserver variability was below 0.35 mm for the phantom and 0.30(T1)/0.61(T2) mm in patients. Mean absolute differences between MRI and reference were below 0.27 ± 0.16 mm and 0.32 ± 0.23 mm for the phantom and in patients, respectively. In patients, clip-clip distances were slightly larger on MRI than on X-ray images (mean difference T1: 0.11 ± 0.38 mm, T2: 0.10 ± 0.44 mm). Differences did not increase at larger distances and did not correlate to interobserver variability.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>A dedicated ocular MRI protocol can produce images of the eye with a geometrical accuracy below half the MRI acquisition voxel (<0.4 mm). Therefore, these images can be used for ocular proton therapy planning, both in the current model-based workflow and in proposed three-dimensional MR-based workflows.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36850,"journal":{"name":"Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240563162400068X/pdfft?md5=575c62f2ecc72ab6cd84680303b9ce94&pid=1-s2.0-S240563162400068X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240563162400068X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background & purpose
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used in treatment preparation of ocular proton therapy, but its spatial accuracy might be limited by geometric distortions due to susceptibility artefacts. A correct geometry of the MR images is paramount since it defines where the dose will be delivered. In this study, we assessed the geometrical accuracy of ocular MRI.
Materials & methods
A dedicated ocular 3 T MRI protocol, with localized shimming and increased gradients, was compared to computed tomography (CT) and X-ray images in a phantom and in 15 uveal melanoma patients. The MRI protocol contained three-dimensional T2-weighted and T1-weighted sequences with an isotropic reconstruction resolution of 0.3–0.4 mm. Tantalum clips were identified by three observers and clip-clip distances were compared between T2-weighted and T1-weighted MRI, CT and X-ray images for the phantom and between MRI and X-ray images for the patients.
Results
Interobserver variability was below 0.35 mm for the phantom and 0.30(T1)/0.61(T2) mm in patients. Mean absolute differences between MRI and reference were below 0.27 ± 0.16 mm and 0.32 ± 0.23 mm for the phantom and in patients, respectively. In patients, clip-clip distances were slightly larger on MRI than on X-ray images (mean difference T1: 0.11 ± 0.38 mm, T2: 0.10 ± 0.44 mm). Differences did not increase at larger distances and did not correlate to interobserver variability.
Conclusions
A dedicated ocular MRI protocol can produce images of the eye with a geometrical accuracy below half the MRI acquisition voxel (<0.4 mm). Therefore, these images can be used for ocular proton therapy planning, both in the current model-based workflow and in proposed three-dimensional MR-based workflows.