Cargando…
Comparison between MR and CT imaging used to correct for skull-induced phase aberrations during transcranial focused ultrasound
Transcranial focused ultrasound with the InSightec Exablate system uses thermal ablation for the treatment of movement and mood disorders and blood brain barrier disruption for tumor therapy. The system uses computed tomography (CT) images to calculate phase corrections that account for aberrations...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9352781/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35927449 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-17319-4 |
_version_ | 1784762727080656896 |
---|---|
author | Leung, Steven A. Moore, David Gilbo, Yekaterina Snell, John Webb, Taylor D. Meyer, Craig H. Miller, G. Wilson Ghanouni, Pejman Butts Pauly, Kim |
author_facet | Leung, Steven A. Moore, David Gilbo, Yekaterina Snell, John Webb, Taylor D. Meyer, Craig H. Miller, G. Wilson Ghanouni, Pejman Butts Pauly, Kim |
author_sort | Leung, Steven A. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Transcranial focused ultrasound with the InSightec Exablate system uses thermal ablation for the treatment of movement and mood disorders and blood brain barrier disruption for tumor therapy. The system uses computed tomography (CT) images to calculate phase corrections that account for aberrations caused by the human skull. This work investigates whether magnetic resonance (MR) images can be used as an alternative to CT images to calculate phase corrections. Phase corrections were calculated using the gold standard hydrophone method and the standard of care InSightec ray tracing method. MR binary image mask, MR-simulated-CT (MRsimCT), and CT images of three ex vivo human skulls were supplied as inputs to the InSightec ray tracing method. The degassed ex vivo human skulls were sonicated with a 670 kHz hemispherical phased array transducer (InSightec Exablate 4000). 3D raster scans of the beam profiles were acquired using a hydrophone mounted on a 3-axis positioner system. Focal spots were evaluated using six metrics: pressure at the target, peak pressure, intensity at the target, peak intensity, positioning error, and focal spot volume. Targets at the geometric focus and 5 mm lateral to the geometric focus were investigated. There was no statistical difference between any of the metrics at either target using either MRsimCT or CT for phase aberration correction. As opposed to the MRsimCT, the use of CT images for aberration correction requires registration to the treatment day MR images; CT misregistration within a range of ± 2 degrees of rotation error along three dimensions was shown to reduce focal spot intensity by up to 9.4%. MRsimCT images used for phase aberration correction for the skull produce similar results as CT-based correction, while avoiding both CT to MR registration errors and unnecessary patient exposure to ionizing radiation. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9352781 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-93527812022-08-06 Comparison between MR and CT imaging used to correct for skull-induced phase aberrations during transcranial focused ultrasound Leung, Steven A. Moore, David Gilbo, Yekaterina Snell, John Webb, Taylor D. Meyer, Craig H. Miller, G. Wilson Ghanouni, Pejman Butts Pauly, Kim Sci Rep Article Transcranial focused ultrasound with the InSightec Exablate system uses thermal ablation for the treatment of movement and mood disorders and blood brain barrier disruption for tumor therapy. The system uses computed tomography (CT) images to calculate phase corrections that account for aberrations caused by the human skull. This work investigates whether magnetic resonance (MR) images can be used as an alternative to CT images to calculate phase corrections. Phase corrections were calculated using the gold standard hydrophone method and the standard of care InSightec ray tracing method. MR binary image mask, MR-simulated-CT (MRsimCT), and CT images of three ex vivo human skulls were supplied as inputs to the InSightec ray tracing method. The degassed ex vivo human skulls were sonicated with a 670 kHz hemispherical phased array transducer (InSightec Exablate 4000). 3D raster scans of the beam profiles were acquired using a hydrophone mounted on a 3-axis positioner system. Focal spots were evaluated using six metrics: pressure at the target, peak pressure, intensity at the target, peak intensity, positioning error, and focal spot volume. Targets at the geometric focus and 5 mm lateral to the geometric focus were investigated. There was no statistical difference between any of the metrics at either target using either MRsimCT or CT for phase aberration correction. As opposed to the MRsimCT, the use of CT images for aberration correction requires registration to the treatment day MR images; CT misregistration within a range of ± 2 degrees of rotation error along three dimensions was shown to reduce focal spot intensity by up to 9.4%. MRsimCT images used for phase aberration correction for the skull produce similar results as CT-based correction, while avoiding both CT to MR registration errors and unnecessary patient exposure to ionizing radiation. Nature Publishing Group UK 2022-08-04 /pmc/articles/PMC9352781/ /pubmed/35927449 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-17319-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Article Leung, Steven A. Moore, David Gilbo, Yekaterina Snell, John Webb, Taylor D. Meyer, Craig H. Miller, G. Wilson Ghanouni, Pejman Butts Pauly, Kim Comparison between MR and CT imaging used to correct for skull-induced phase aberrations during transcranial focused ultrasound |
title | Comparison between MR and CT imaging used to correct for skull-induced phase aberrations during transcranial focused ultrasound |
title_full | Comparison between MR and CT imaging used to correct for skull-induced phase aberrations during transcranial focused ultrasound |
title_fullStr | Comparison between MR and CT imaging used to correct for skull-induced phase aberrations during transcranial focused ultrasound |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison between MR and CT imaging used to correct for skull-induced phase aberrations during transcranial focused ultrasound |
title_short | Comparison between MR and CT imaging used to correct for skull-induced phase aberrations during transcranial focused ultrasound |
title_sort | comparison between mr and ct imaging used to correct for skull-induced phase aberrations during transcranial focused ultrasound |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9352781/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35927449 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-17319-4 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT leungstevena comparisonbetweenmrandctimagingusedtocorrectforskullinducedphaseaberrationsduringtranscranialfocusedultrasound AT mooredavid comparisonbetweenmrandctimagingusedtocorrectforskullinducedphaseaberrationsduringtranscranialfocusedultrasound AT gilboyekaterina comparisonbetweenmrandctimagingusedtocorrectforskullinducedphaseaberrationsduringtranscranialfocusedultrasound AT snelljohn comparisonbetweenmrandctimagingusedtocorrectforskullinducedphaseaberrationsduringtranscranialfocusedultrasound AT webbtaylord comparisonbetweenmrandctimagingusedtocorrectforskullinducedphaseaberrationsduringtranscranialfocusedultrasound AT meyercraigh comparisonbetweenmrandctimagingusedtocorrectforskullinducedphaseaberrationsduringtranscranialfocusedultrasound AT millergwilson comparisonbetweenmrandctimagingusedtocorrectforskullinducedphaseaberrationsduringtranscranialfocusedultrasound AT ghanounipejman comparisonbetweenmrandctimagingusedtocorrectforskullinducedphaseaberrationsduringtranscranialfocusedultrasound AT buttspaulykim comparisonbetweenmrandctimagingusedtocorrectforskullinducedphaseaberrationsduringtranscranialfocusedultrasound |