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":"用于眼部质子治疗规划的磁共振成像的几何精度","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
背景& 目的磁共振成像(MRI)越来越多地用于眼部质子疗法的治疗准备,但其空间精确度可能会因感光伪影导致的几何失真而受到限制。核磁共振图像的正确几何形状至关重要,因为它确定了剂量的投放位置。在这项研究中,我们评估了眼部核磁共振成像的几何精度。材料&方法在一个模型和 15 名葡萄膜黑色素瘤患者中,将带有局部垫片和增加梯度的专用眼部 3 T 核磁共振成像方案与计算机断层扫描(CT)和 X 射线图像进行了比较。核磁共振成像方案包含三维 T2 加权和 T1 加权序列,各向同性重建分辨率为 0.3-0.4 毫米。由三名观察者识别钽夹,比较模型的 T2 加权和 T1 加权 MRI、CT 和 X 光图像之间以及患者的 MRI 和 X 光图像之间的夹片距离。模型和患者的核磁共振成像与参照物之间的平均绝对差值分别低于 0.27 ± 0.16 毫米和 0.32 ± 0.23 毫米。在患者中,核磁共振成像上的夹片距离略大于 X 射线图像上的夹片距离(T1 平均差值:0.11 ± 0.38 毫米,T2 平均差值:0.10 ± 0.44 毫米)。结论 专用的眼部核磁共振成像方案可生成几何精度低于核磁共振成像采集体素一半(0.4 毫米)的眼部图像。因此,这些图像可用于眼部质子治疗规划,无论是在当前基于模型的工作流程中,还是在拟议的基于三维 MR 的工作流程中。
Geometrical accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for ocular proton therapy planning
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.