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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |
_version_ | 1782359007565971456 |
---|---|
author | 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 |
author_facet | 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 |
author_sort | Doemer, Anthony |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4340286 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-43402862015-02-26 Evaluating organ delineation, dose calculation and daily localization in an open-MRI simulation workflow for prostate cancer patients 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 Radiat Oncol Research 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. BioMed Central 2015-02-11 /pmc/articles/PMC4340286/ /pubmed/25889107 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-014-0309-0 Text en © Doemer et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research 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 Evaluating organ delineation, dose calculation and daily localization in an open-MRI simulation workflow for prostate cancer patients |
title | Evaluating organ delineation, dose calculation and daily localization in an open-MRI simulation workflow for prostate cancer patients |
title_full | Evaluating organ delineation, dose calculation and daily localization in an open-MRI simulation workflow for prostate cancer patients |
title_fullStr | Evaluating organ delineation, dose calculation and daily localization in an open-MRI simulation workflow for prostate cancer patients |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluating organ delineation, dose calculation and daily localization in an open-MRI simulation workflow for prostate cancer patients |
title_short | Evaluating organ delineation, dose calculation and daily localization in an open-MRI simulation workflow for prostate cancer patients |
title_sort | evaluating organ delineation, dose calculation and daily localization in an open-mri simulation workflow for prostate cancer patients |
topic | Research |
url | 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 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT doemeranthony evaluatingorgandelineationdosecalculationanddailylocalizationinanopenmrisimulationworkflowforprostatecancerpatients AT chettyindrinj evaluatingorgandelineationdosecalculationanddailylocalizationinanopenmrisimulationworkflowforprostatecancerpatients AT glidehurstcarri evaluatingorgandelineationdosecalculationanddailylocalizationinanopenmrisimulationworkflowforprostatecancerpatients AT nurushevteamour evaluatingorgandelineationdosecalculationanddailylocalizationinanopenmrisimulationworkflowforprostatecancerpatients AT hearshendavid evaluatingorgandelineationdosecalculationanddailylocalizationinanopenmrisimulationworkflowforprostatecancerpatients AT pantelicmilan evaluatingorgandelineationdosecalculationanddailylocalizationinanopenmrisimulationworkflowforprostatecancerpatients AT traughbermelanie evaluatingorgandelineationdosecalculationanddailylocalizationinanopenmrisimulationworkflowforprostatecancerpatients AT kimjoshua evaluatingorgandelineationdosecalculationanddailylocalizationinanopenmrisimulationworkflowforprostatecancerpatients AT levinkenneth evaluatingorgandelineationdosecalculationanddailylocalizationinanopenmrisimulationworkflowforprostatecancerpatients AT elshaikhmohameda evaluatingorgandelineationdosecalculationanddailylocalizationinanopenmrisimulationworkflowforprostatecancerpatients AT walkereleanor evaluatingorgandelineationdosecalculationanddailylocalizationinanopenmrisimulationworkflowforprostatecancerpatients AT movsasbenjamin evaluatingorgandelineationdosecalculationanddailylocalizationinanopenmrisimulationworkflowforprostatecancerpatients |