skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: SU-F-J-166: Volumetric Spatial Distortions Comparison for 1.5 Tesla Versus 3 Tesla MRI for Gamma Knife Radiosurgery Scans Using Frame Marker Fusion and Co-Registration Modes

Abstract

Purpose: To compare typical volumetric spatial distortions for 1.5 Tesla versus 3 Tesla MRI Gamma Knife radiosurgery scans in the frame marker fusion and co-registration frame-less modes. Methods: Quasar phantom by Modus Medical Devices Inc. with GRID image distortion software was used for measurements of volumetric distortions. 3D volumetric T1 weighted scans of the phantom were produced on 1.5 T Avanto and 3 T Skyra MRI Siemens scanners. The analysis was done two ways: for scans with localizer markers from the Leksell frame and relatively to the phantom only (simulated co-registration technique). The phantom grid contained a total of 2002 vertices or control points that were used in the assessment of volumetric geometric distortion for all scans. Results: Volumetric mean absolute spatial deviations relatively to the frame localizer markers for 1.5 and 3 Tesla machine were: 1.39 ± 0.15 and 1.63 ± 0.28 mm with max errors of 1.86 and 2.65 mm correspondingly. Mean 2D errors from the Gamma Plan were 0.3 and 1.0 mm. For simulated co-registration technique the volumetric mean absolute spatial deviations relatively to the phantom for 1.5 and 3 Tesla machine were: 0.36 ± 0.08 and 0.62 ± 0.13 mm with max errors of 0.57 andmore » 1.22 mm correspondingly. Conclusion: Volumetric spatial distortions are lower for 1.5 Tesla versus 3 Tesla MRI machines localized with markers on frames and significantly lower for co-registration techniques with no frame localization. The results show the advantage of using co-registration technique for minimizing MRI volumetric spatial distortions which can be especially important for steep dose gradient fields typically used in Gamma Knife radiosurgery. Consultant for Elekta AB.« less

Authors:
 [1]
  1. The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22634765
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; COMPUTER CODES; DOSES; ERRORS; IMAGES; NMR IMAGING; PHANTOMS; QUASARS; RADIOTHERAPY; SIMULATION; SURGERY

Citation Formats

Neyman, G. SU-F-J-166: Volumetric Spatial Distortions Comparison for 1.5 Tesla Versus 3 Tesla MRI for Gamma Knife Radiosurgery Scans Using Frame Marker Fusion and Co-Registration Modes. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956074.
Neyman, G. SU-F-J-166: Volumetric Spatial Distortions Comparison for 1.5 Tesla Versus 3 Tesla MRI for Gamma Knife Radiosurgery Scans Using Frame Marker Fusion and Co-Registration Modes. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956074.
Neyman, G. Wed . "SU-F-J-166: Volumetric Spatial Distortions Comparison for 1.5 Tesla Versus 3 Tesla MRI for Gamma Knife Radiosurgery Scans Using Frame Marker Fusion and Co-Registration Modes". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956074.
@article{osti_22634765,
title = {SU-F-J-166: Volumetric Spatial Distortions Comparison for 1.5 Tesla Versus 3 Tesla MRI for Gamma Knife Radiosurgery Scans Using Frame Marker Fusion and Co-Registration Modes},
author = {Neyman, G},
abstractNote = {Purpose: To compare typical volumetric spatial distortions for 1.5 Tesla versus 3 Tesla MRI Gamma Knife radiosurgery scans in the frame marker fusion and co-registration frame-less modes. Methods: Quasar phantom by Modus Medical Devices Inc. with GRID image distortion software was used for measurements of volumetric distortions. 3D volumetric T1 weighted scans of the phantom were produced on 1.5 T Avanto and 3 T Skyra MRI Siemens scanners. The analysis was done two ways: for scans with localizer markers from the Leksell frame and relatively to the phantom only (simulated co-registration technique). The phantom grid contained a total of 2002 vertices or control points that were used in the assessment of volumetric geometric distortion for all scans. Results: Volumetric mean absolute spatial deviations relatively to the frame localizer markers for 1.5 and 3 Tesla machine were: 1.39 ± 0.15 and 1.63 ± 0.28 mm with max errors of 1.86 and 2.65 mm correspondingly. Mean 2D errors from the Gamma Plan were 0.3 and 1.0 mm. For simulated co-registration technique the volumetric mean absolute spatial deviations relatively to the phantom for 1.5 and 3 Tesla machine were: 0.36 ± 0.08 and 0.62 ± 0.13 mm with max errors of 0.57 and 1.22 mm correspondingly. Conclusion: Volumetric spatial distortions are lower for 1.5 Tesla versus 3 Tesla MRI machines localized with markers on frames and significantly lower for co-registration techniques with no frame localization. The results show the advantage of using co-registration technique for minimizing MRI volumetric spatial distortions which can be especially important for steep dose gradient fields typically used in Gamma Knife radiosurgery. Consultant for Elekta AB.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956074},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016},
month = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016}
}
  • Purpose: Most Gamma knife treatments are based solely on MR-images. However, for fractionated treatments and to implement TPS dose calculations that require electron densities, CT image data is essential. The purpose of this work is to assess the dosimetric effects of using MR-images registered with stereotactic CT-images in Gamma knife treatments. Methods: Twelve patients treated for vestibular schwannoma with Gamma Knife Perfexion (Elekta Instruments, Sweden) were selected for this study. The prescribed doses (12 Gy to periphery) were delivered based on the conventional approach of using stereotactic MR-images only. These plans were imported into stereotactic CT-images (by registering MR-images withmore » stereotactic CT-images using the Leksell gamma plan registration software). The dose plans, for each patient, are identical in both cases except for potential rotations and translations resulting from the registration. The impact of the registrations was assessed by an algorithm written in Matlab. The algorithm compares the dose-distributions voxel-by-voxel between the two plans, calculates the full dose coverage of the target (treated in the conventional approach) achieved by the CT-based plan, and calculates the minimum dose delivered to the target (treated in the conventional approach) achieved by the CT-based plan. Results: The mean dose difference between the plans was 0.2 Gy to 0.4 Gy (max 4.5 Gy) whereas between 89% and 97% of the target (treated in the conventional approach) received the prescribed dose, by the CT-plan. The minimum dose to the target (treated in the conventional approach) given by the CT-based plan was between 7.9 Gy and 10.7 Gy (compared to 12 Gy in the conventional treatment). Conclusion: The impact of using MR-images registered with stereotactic CT-images has successfully been compared to conventionally delivered dose plans showing significant differences between the two. Although CTimages have been implemented clinically; the effect of the registration has not been fully investigated.« less
  • Purpose: To determine the 6 degree of freedom systematic deviations between 2D/3D and CBCT image registration with various imaging setups and fusion algorithms on the Varian Edge Linac. Methods: An anthropomorphic head phantom with radio opaque targets embedded was scanned with CT slice thicknesses of 0.8, 1, 2, and 3mm. The 6 DOF systematic errors were assessed by comparing 2D/3D (kV/MV with CT) with 3D/3D (CBCT with CT) image registrations with different offset positions, similarity measures, image filters, and CBCT slice thicknesses (1 and 2 mm). The 2D/3D registration accuracy of 51 fractions for 26 cranial SRS patients was alsomore » evaluated by analyzing 2D/3D pre-treatment verification taken after 3D/3D image registrations. Results: The systematic deviations of 2D/3D image registration using kV- kV, MV-kV and MV-MV image pairs were within ±0.3mm and ±0.3° for translations and rotations with 95% confidence interval (CI) for a reference CT with 0.8 mm slice thickness. No significant difference (P>0.05) on target localization was observed between 0.8mm, 1mm, and 2mm CT slice thicknesses with CBCT slice thicknesses of 1mm and 2mm. With 3mm CT slice thickness, both 2D/3D and 3D/3D registrations performed less accurately in longitudinal direction than thinner CT slice thickness (0.60±0.12mm and 0.63±0.07mm off, respectively). Using content filter and using similarity measure of pattern intensity instead of mutual information, improved the 2D/3D registration accuracy significantly (P=0.02 and P=0.01, respectively). For the patient study, means and standard deviations of residual errors were 0.09±0.32mm, −0.22±0.51mm and −0.07±0.32mm in VRT, LNG and LAT directions, respectively, and 0.12°±0.46°, −0.12°±0.39° and 0.06°±0.28° in RTN, PITCH, and ROLL directions, respectively. 95% CI of translational and rotational deviations were comparable to those in phantom study. Conclusion: 2D/3D image registration provided on the Varian Edge radiosurgery, 6 DOF-based system provides accurate target positioning for frameless image-guided cranial stereotactic radiosurgery.« less
  • Purpose: To compare the accuracy of CT-MR registration using a mutual information method with registration using a frame-based localizer box. Methods: Ten patients having the Leksell head frame and scanned with a modality specific localizer box were imported into the treatment planning system. The fiducial rods of the localizer box were contoured on both the MR and CT scans. The skull was contoured on the CT images. The MR and CT images were registered by two methods. The frame-based method used the transformation that minimized the mean square distance of the centroids of the contours of the fiducial rods frommore » a mathematical model of the localizer. The mutual information method used automated image registration tools in the TPS and was restricted to a volume-of-interest defined by the skull contours with a 5 mm margin. For each case, the two registrations were adjusted by two evaluation teams, each comprised of an experienced radiation oncologist and neurosurgeon, to optimize alignment in the region of the brainstem. The teams were blinded to the registration method. Results: The mean adjustment was 0.4 mm (range 0 to 2 mm) and 0.2 mm (range 0 to 1 mm) for the frame and mutual information methods, respectively. The median difference between the frame and mutual information registrations was 0.3 mm, but was not statistically significant using the Wilcoxon signed rank test (p=0.37). Conclusion: The difference between frame and mutual information registration techniques was neither statistically significant nor, for most applications, clinically important. These results suggest that mutual information is equivalent to frame-based image registration for radiosurgery. Work is ongoing to add additional evaluators and to assess the differences between evaluators.« less
  • Purpose: To accommodate head-and-neck (HN) RT simulation scan with immobilization, sub-optimized flexible radiofrequency coils have to be used on an MR-sim rather than a volumetric head coil for diagnostic radiological (DR) applications. In this study, we present and compare ACR MRI phantom test with flexible coils setting (RT-setting) and volumetric head coil setting (DR-setting). Methods: Two 8-channel array coils were wrapped close to an ACR MRI phantom placed on a flat couch-top in RT-setting for acquisition. ACR MRI phantom tests were conducted 10 times for each setting on a 1.5T MR-sim. Sagittal localizer (TE/TR=20/200ms), axial T1 (TE/TR=20/500ms) and T2 scansmore » (2TEs/TR=20,80/2000ms) were acquired (NEX=1). Acqusition and image analysis were conducted following ACR guidelines. Extra 10 RT-setting acquisitions were obtained by enabling prescan normalization. Results: For RT-setting without prescan normalization, all tests passed the ACR recommended criteria but image intensity uniformity. Geometric accuracy was 147.8±0.3mm and 191.0±0.4mm. Spatial resolution was 0.9mm. Slice thickness was 5.2mm±0.1mm (T1) and 5.1±0.1mm (T2). Slice position accuracy was 1.4±0.6mm, −2.2±0.3mm (T1), and 1.5±0.2mm, −2.2±0.2mm (T2). Image uniformity was 80.6%±2.6% (T1) and 80.2%±3.1% (T2) (criteria: ≥87.5% for 1.5T). Ghosting ratio was 0.0006±0.0004. Low contrast detectability was 30.7±1.7 (T1) and 22.6±3.0 (T2). Image uniformity (91.4%±4.2% and 91.8%±4.3%) and low contrast detectability (36.5±1.4 and 31.6±2.2) of DR-setting were better than RT-setting. Prescan normalization substantially improved image uniformity to 93.4%±0.2% and 93.4%±0.3%, but slightly compromised ghosting (0.0033±0.0004) and spatial resolution (0.9mm or 1.0mm) for RT-setting. Conclusion: Flexible coils setting for HN-RT simulation scan could successfully pass ACR criteria (prescan normalization enabled) and generally achieve comparable performance to volumetric coil setting, although compromise on low contrast detectability was observed probably due to the lower signal-to-noise ratio of the flexible coils. Our results could also serve as a reference baseline of high-field MR-sim QA performance under ACR guideline.« less
  • Purpose: To compare dose distributions in stereotactic radiation surgery of brain lesions using gamma Knife, VMAT, conformal arcs, and IMRT in order to provide an optimal treatment. Methods: Dose distributions from single shot of 4C model of Gamma Knife at the helmet collimation sizes of 4, 8, 14, and 18 mm in diameter were compared with full arcs with the square shapes of 4×4 (or 5×5), 8×8 (or 10×10), and spherical shapes of 16 or 20 mm in diameter using EDR3 films in the same gamma knife QA phantom. Plans for ten SRS cases with single and multiple lesions weremore » created in gamma knife plans and Pinnacle plans. The external beam plans had enlarged field size by 2-mm and used single conformal full circle arc for solitary lesion and none coplanar arcs/beams for multiple lesions. Coverage, conformity index, dose to critical organs, and integral dose to the brain and nearby critical structures were compared on all plans. Structures and dose matrices were registered in a Velocity deformable image registration system. Results: Single full circle arc from Elekta beam-modulate MLC (4-mm leaf thickness) and agility MLC (5-mm leaf thickness) have larger penumbra and less flatness than that of Gamma Knife single shot. None-coplanar arcs or beams were required to achieve similar dose distribution. In general, Gamma Knife plans provided significant less integral dose than that of linac-based plans. Benefits of IMRT and VMAT versus gamma Knife and conformal arcs were not significant. Conclusion: Our dose measurement and treatment planning evaluation clearly demonstrated dose distribution differences amount current popular SRS modalities for small solitary and multiple brain lesions. The trend of using MLC shape beams or arcs to replace conventional cones should be revisited in order to keep lower integral dose if the late correlates with some radiation-induced side effects. Pilot grant from Elekta LLC.« less