The accuracy of Magnetic Resonance - Cone Beam Computed Tomography soft-tissue matching for prostate radiotherapy.
The accuracy of Magnetic Resonance - Cone Beam Computed Tomography soft-tissue matching for prostate radiotherapy.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.phro.2019.11.005
复制
发表时间：
2019-10
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
McCallum HM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Wyatt JJ;Brooks RL;Ainslie D;Wilkins E;Raven E;Pilling K;Pearson RA;McCallum HM
磁共振(MR)-仅放射治疗需要治疗中图像验证方法。本研究探讨了磁共振锥束ct （MR-Cone Beam Computed Tomography， CBCT）图像匹配的准确性。MR-CBCT匹配与CT-CBCT无临床差异（平均差异≤0.2 mm）。MR-CBCT匹配具有与CT-CBCT相似的观察者间变异（0.5 mm以内）。磁共振(MR)-仅放射治疗需要一种与正在治疗的锥形束计算机断层扫描（CBCT）匹配图像的方法。本研究旨在探讨MR-CBCT软组织匹配在前列腺mr放疗中的准确性。使用了三个患者队列，所有患者都接受了MR和CT扫描。对于第一组（10名患者），第一部分CBCT被自动严格地注册到CT和MR扫描中，MR-CT注册使用MR-CBCT和CT-CBCT注册预测。这与MR-CT自动登记进行了比较。对于第二组和第三组（各5名患者），由4名放射技师独立地将第一部分CBCT与CT和MR匹配，比较MR-CBCT和CT-CBCT匹配，并评估观察者间的可变性。第二组使用基于CT的结构集，第三组使用基于MR的结构集，MR被重新标记为“CT”。预测与实际MR-CT配准的平均差值为（s.e.m）。放射技师MR-CBCT登记与CT-CBCT登记没有显著差异，软组织匹配的平均差异和除一个差异外的所有差异。这低于MR-CBCT的观察者间一致性限制（纵向、纵向、横向），后者与CT-CBCT相似。MR-CBCT软组织匹配与CT-CBCT无显著差异。将MR重新标记为“CT”似乎不会改变自动注册。这说明MR-CBCT软组织匹配是可行和准确的。
Magnetic Resonance (MR)-Only radiotherapy requires an on-treatment image verification method. This study investigated the accuracy of MR-Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) image matching. MR-CBCT matching was not clinically different to CT-CBCT (mean differences ⩽0.2 mm). MR-CBCT matching had similar (within 0.5 mm) inter-observer variability to CT-CBCT. Magnetic Resonance (MR)-Only radiotherapy requires a method for matching image with on-treatment Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT). This study aimed to investigate the accuracy of MR-CBCT soft-tissue matching for prostate MR-only radiotherapy. Three patient cohorts were used, with all patients receiving MR and CT scans. For the first cohort (10 patients) the first fraction CBCT was automatically rigidly registered to the CT and MR scans and the MR-CT registration predicted using the MR-CBCT and CT-CBCT registrations. This was compared to the automatic MR-CT registration. For the second and third cohorts (five patients each) the first fraction CBCT was independently matched to the CT and MR by four radiographers, the MR-CBCT and CT-CBCT matches compared and the inter-observer variability assessed. The second cohort used a CT-based structure set and the third a MR-based structure set with the MR relabelled as a ‘CT’. The mean difference between predicted and actual MR-CT registrations was (s.e.m.). Radiographer MR-CBCT registrations were not significantly different to CT-CBCT, with mean differences in soft-tissue match and all except one difference . This was less than the MR-CBCT inter-observer limits of agreement (vertical, longitudinal, lateral), which were similar () to CT-CBCT. MR-CBCT soft-tissue matching is not significantly different to CT-CBCT. Relabelling the MR as a ‘CT’ does not appear to change the automatic registration. This suggests that MR-CBCT soft-tissue matching is feasible and accurate.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.06.006
发表时间：
2017-11-01
影响因子：
7
作者：
Persson, Emilia;Gustafsson, Christian;Jonsson, Joakim
通讯作者：
Jonsson, Joakim
影响因子：
2.6
作者：
McNair, Helen A.;Harris, Emma J.;Dearnaley, David P.
通讯作者：
Dearnaley, David P.
影响因子：
2.6
作者：
Khoo, V. S.;Joon, D. L.
通讯作者：
Joon, D. L.
影响因子：
2.1
作者：
Chen S;Quan H;Qin A;Yee S;Yan D
通讯作者：
Yan D
影响因子：
3.6
作者：
Doemer, Anthony;Chetty, Indrin J.;Movsas, Benjamin
通讯作者：
Movsas, Benjamin