Cargando…

Evaluating organ delineation, dose calculation and daily localization in an open-MRI simulation workflow for prostate cancer patients

BACKGROUND: This study describes initial testing and evaluation of a vertical-field open Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanner for the purpose of simulation in radiation therapy for prostate cancer. We have evaluated the clinical workflow of using open MRI as a sole modality for simulation and pl...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Doemer, Anthony, Chetty, Indrin J, Glide-Hurst, Carri, Nurushev, Teamour, Hearshen, David, Pantelic, Milan, Traughber, Melanie, Kim, Joshua, Levin, Kenneth, Elshaikh, Mohamed A, Walker, Eleanor, Movsas, Benjamin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4340286/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25889107
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-014-0309-0
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: This study describes initial testing and evaluation of a vertical-field open Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanner for the purpose of simulation in radiation therapy for prostate cancer. We have evaluated the clinical workflow of using open MRI as a sole modality for simulation and planning. Relevant results related to MRI alignment (vs. CT) reference dataset with Cone-Beam CT (CBCT) for daily localization are presented. METHODS: Ten patients participated in an IRB approved study utilizing MRI along with CT simulation with the intent of evaluating the MRI-simulation process. Differences in prostate gland volume, seminal vesicles, and penile bulb were assessed with MRI and compared to CT. To evaluate dose calculation accuracy, bulk-density-assignments were mapped onto respective MRI datasets and treated IMRT plans were re-calculated. For image localization purposes, 400 CBCTs were re-evaluated with MRI as the reference dataset and daily shifts compared against CBCT-to-CT registration. Planning margins based on MRI/CBCT shifts were computed using the van Herk formalism. RESULTS: Significant organ contour differences were noted between MRI and CT. Prostate volumes were on average 39.7% (p = 0.002) larger on CT than MRI. No significant difference was found in seminal vesicle volumes (p = 0.454). Penile bulb volumes were 61.1% higher on CT, without statistical significance (p = 0.074). MRI-based dose calculations with assigned bulk densities produced agreement within 1% with heterogeneity corrected CT calculations. The differences in shift positions for the cohort between CBCT-to-CT registration and CBCT-to-MRI registration are −0.15 ± 0.25 cm (anterior-posterior), 0.05 ± 0.19 cm (superior-inferior), and −0.01 ± 0.14 cm (left-right). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the potential of using an open-field MRI scanner as primary imaging modality for prostate cancer treatment planning simulation, dose calculations and daily image localization.