Gu Ying, Xing Pengfei, Cai Shang, Qian Jianjun, Fan Qiuhong, T. Ye
{"title":"MRI模拟与诊断MRI与CT模拟图像配准精度的比较","authors":"Gu Ying, Xing Pengfei, Cai Shang, Qian Jianjun, Fan Qiuhong, T. Ye","doi":"10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.0254-5098.2019.11.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective \nTo evaluate the precision of image registration between MRI simulation (MRIsim) and CT simulation compared to diagnostic MRI(MRIdiag) and to provide information for further application of MRIsim. \n \n \nMethods \nA total of 24 patients who underwent both MRIsim and MRIdiag were enrolled, including 8 patients with gliomas, 8 with nasopharyngeal carcinomas and 8 with prostate cancers. MRIsim and MRIdiag images of each patient were fused with CT. The OARs were delineated on three modalities of images and targets were delineated on fusion image of MRIsim with CT (F_CTMsim) and fusion image of MRIdiag with CT (F_CTMdiag) respectively. The concordance index (CI), Dice′s similarity coefficient (DSC) between the OARs and image similarity index (S) based on images from MRIsim, MRIdiag and CT were evaluated. IMRT plans were designed based targets on F_CTMsim and OARs on CT images, and differences in dosimetry of targets and OARs were evaluated subsequently. \n \n \nResults \nVolumes of most OAR from three modalities of images showed no statistically significant difference(P>0.05). All the CI and DSC between the OARs derived from MRIsim and CT were higher than those corresponding values from MRIdiag, and a statistically significant difference was achieved in 50% of these OARs (t=2.58-5.47, P 0.05). \n \n \nConclusions \nThe precision of image registration can be significantly improved by introducing MRIsim into radiotherapy planning design compared with MRIdiag. However, no significant differences in dosimetry were found on targets produced by rigid registration and manual adjustment method . \n \n \nKey words: \nMRI simulation; Image fusion; Rigid registration; MRI diagnosis; Precision","PeriodicalId":36403,"journal":{"name":"中华放射医学与防护杂志","volume":"121 1","pages":"827-832"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison in precision of image registration between MRI simulation and diagnostic MRI with CT simulation\",\"authors\":\"Gu Ying, Xing Pengfei, Cai Shang, Qian Jianjun, Fan Qiuhong, T. Ye\",\"doi\":\"10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.0254-5098.2019.11.005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective \\nTo evaluate the precision of image registration between MRI simulation (MRIsim) and CT simulation compared to diagnostic MRI(MRIdiag) and to provide information for further application of MRIsim. \\n \\n \\nMethods \\nA total of 24 patients who underwent both MRIsim and MRIdiag were enrolled, including 8 patients with gliomas, 8 with nasopharyngeal carcinomas and 8 with prostate cancers. MRIsim and MRIdiag images of each patient were fused with CT. The OARs were delineated on three modalities of images and targets were delineated on fusion image of MRIsim with CT (F_CTMsim) and fusion image of MRIdiag with CT (F_CTMdiag) respectively. The concordance index (CI), Dice′s similarity coefficient (DSC) between the OARs and image similarity index (S) based on images from MRIsim, MRIdiag and CT were evaluated. IMRT plans were designed based targets on F_CTMsim and OARs on CT images, and differences in dosimetry of targets and OARs were evaluated subsequently. \\n \\n \\nResults \\nVolumes of most OAR from three modalities of images showed no statistically significant difference(P>0.05). All the CI and DSC between the OARs derived from MRIsim and CT were higher than those corresponding values from MRIdiag, and a statistically significant difference was achieved in 50% of these OARs (t=2.58-5.47, P 0.05). \\n \\n \\nConclusions \\nThe precision of image registration can be significantly improved by introducing MRIsim into radiotherapy planning design compared with MRIdiag. However, no significant differences in dosimetry were found on targets produced by rigid registration and manual adjustment method . \\n \\n \\nKey words: \\nMRI simulation; Image fusion; Rigid registration; MRI diagnosis; Precision\",\"PeriodicalId\":36403,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"中华放射医学与防护杂志\",\"volume\":\"121 1\",\"pages\":\"827-832\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-11-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"中华放射医学与防护杂志\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.0254-5098.2019.11.005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中华放射医学与防护杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.0254-5098.2019.11.005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的评价MRI模拟(MRIsim)与CT模拟(mrridiag)与诊断性MRI(mrridiag)图像配准的精度,为MRI模拟(MRIsim)的进一步应用提供信息。方法共纳入24例同时行MRIsim和mrridiag的患者,其中胶质瘤8例,鼻咽癌8例,前列腺癌8例。每个患者的MRIsim和mri图像与CT融合。分别在MRIsim与CT融合图像(F_CTMsim)和mrridiag与CT融合图像(F_CTMdiag)上对目标进行描绘。评价基于MRIsim、MRIdiag和CT图像的桨叶之间的一致性指数(CI)、Dice相似系数(DSC)和图像相似指数(S)。基于F_CTMsim靶和CT图像上的OARs设计IMRT计划,评估靶和OARs的剂量学差异。结果三种成像方式的大部分桨叶体积差异无统计学意义(P < 0.05)。MRIsim与CT所得桨叶CI、DSC均高于mri所得桨叶,其中50%桨叶差异有统计学意义(t=2.58 ~ 5.47, P 0.05)。结论在放疗计划设计中引入MRIsim比mrridiag能显著提高图像配准精度。而刚性配准法和手动调整法产生的靶材在剂量学上没有明显差异。关键词:MRI仿真;图像融合;严格的登记;MRI诊断;精度
Comparison in precision of image registration between MRI simulation and diagnostic MRI with CT simulation
Objective
To evaluate the precision of image registration between MRI simulation (MRIsim) and CT simulation compared to diagnostic MRI(MRIdiag) and to provide information for further application of MRIsim.
Methods
A total of 24 patients who underwent both MRIsim and MRIdiag were enrolled, including 8 patients with gliomas, 8 with nasopharyngeal carcinomas and 8 with prostate cancers. MRIsim and MRIdiag images of each patient were fused with CT. The OARs were delineated on three modalities of images and targets were delineated on fusion image of MRIsim with CT (F_CTMsim) and fusion image of MRIdiag with CT (F_CTMdiag) respectively. The concordance index (CI), Dice′s similarity coefficient (DSC) between the OARs and image similarity index (S) based on images from MRIsim, MRIdiag and CT were evaluated. IMRT plans were designed based targets on F_CTMsim and OARs on CT images, and differences in dosimetry of targets and OARs were evaluated subsequently.
Results
Volumes of most OAR from three modalities of images showed no statistically significant difference(P>0.05). All the CI and DSC between the OARs derived from MRIsim and CT were higher than those corresponding values from MRIdiag, and a statistically significant difference was achieved in 50% of these OARs (t=2.58-5.47, P 0.05).
Conclusions
The precision of image registration can be significantly improved by introducing MRIsim into radiotherapy planning design compared with MRIdiag. However, no significant differences in dosimetry were found on targets produced by rigid registration and manual adjustment method .
Key words:
MRI simulation; Image fusion; Rigid registration; MRI diagnosis; Precision