Cargando…

Clinical assessment of geometric distortion for a 0.35T MR‐guided radiotherapy system

PURPOSE: To estimate the overall spatial distortion on clinical patient images for a 0.35 T MR‐guided radiotherapy system. METHODS: Ten patients with head‐and‐neck cancer underwent CT and MR simulations with identical immobilization. The MR images underwent the standard systematic distortion correct...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Neylon, John, Cook, Kiri A., Yang, Yingli, Du, Dongsu, Sheng, Ke, Chin, Robert K., Kishan, Amar U., Lamb, James M., Low, Daniel A., Cao, Minsong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8364259/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34231963
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13340
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: To estimate the overall spatial distortion on clinical patient images for a 0.35 T MR‐guided radiotherapy system. METHODS: Ten patients with head‐and‐neck cancer underwent CT and MR simulations with identical immobilization. The MR images underwent the standard systematic distortion correction post‐processing. The images were rigidly registered and landmark‐based analysis was performed by an anatomical expert. Distortion was quantified using Euclidean distance between each landmark pair and tagged by tissue interface: bone‐tissue, soft tissue, or air‐tissue. For baseline comparisons, an anthropomorphic phantom was imaged and analyzed. RESULTS: The average spatial discrepancy between CT and MR landmarks was 1.15 ± 1.14 mm for the phantom and 1.46 ± 1.78 mm for patients. The error histogram peaked at 0–1 mm. 66% of the discrepancies were <2 mm and 51% <1 mm. In the patient data, statistically significant differences (p‐values < 0.0001) were found between the different tissue interfaces with averages of 0.88 ± 1.24 mm, 2.01 ± 2.20 mm, and 1.41 ± 1.56 mm for the air/tissue, bone/tissue, and soft tissue, respectively. The distortion generally correlated with the in‐plane radial distance from the image center along the longitudinal axis of the MR. CONCLUSION: Spatial distortion remains in the MR images after systematic distortion corrections. Although the average errors were relatively small, large distortions observed at bone/tissue interfaces emphasize the need for quantitative methods for assessing and correcting patient‐specific spatial distortions.