Multislice motion modeling for MRI-guided radiotherapy gating.
MRI
motion modeling
radiotherapy
Journal
Medical physics
ISSN: 2473-4209
Titre abrégé: Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0425746
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2019
Feb 2019
Historique:
received:
23
08
2018
revised:
15
11
2018
accepted:
13
12
2018
pubmed:
21
12
2018
medline:
26
2
2019
entrez:
21
12
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
On-board magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) greatly enhances real-time target tracking capability during radiotherapy treatments. However, multislice and volumetric MRI techniques are frame rate limited and introduce unacceptable latency between the target moving out of position and the beam being turned off. We present a technique to estimate continuous volumetric tissue motion using motion models built from a repeated acquisition of a stack of MR slices. Applications including multislice target visualization and out-of-slice motion estimation during MRI-guided radiotherapy are demonstrated. Eight healthy volunteer studies were performed using a 0.35 T MRI-guided radiotherapy system. Images were acquired at three frames per second in an interleaved fashion across ten adjacent sagittal slice positions covering 4.5 cm using a balanced steady-state-free precession sequence. A previously published five-dimensional (5D) linear motion model used for MRI-guided radiotherapy gating was extended to include multiple slices. This model utilizes an external respiratory bellows signal recorded during imaging to simultaneously estimate motion across all imaged slices. For comparison to an image-based approach, the manifold learning technique local linear embedding (LLE) was used to derive a respiratory surrogate for motion modeling. Manifolds for every slice were aligned during LLE in a group-wise fashion, enabling motion estimation outside the current imaged slice using a motion model, a process which we denote as mSGA. Additionally, a method is developed to evaluate out-of-slice motion estimates. The multislice motion model was evaluated in a single slice with each newly acquired image using a leave-one-out approach. Model-generated gating decision accuracy and beam-on positive predictive value (PPV) are reported along with the median and 95th percentile distance between model and ground truth target centroids. The average model gating decision accuracy and PPV across all volunteer studies was 93.7% and 92.8% using the 5D model, and 96.8% and 96.1% using the mSGA model, respectively. The median and 95th percentile distance between model and ground truth target centroids was 0.91 and 2.90 mm, respectively, using the 5D model and 0.58 and 1.49 mm using the mSGA model, averaged over all eight subjects. The mSGA motion model provided a statistically significant improvement across all evaluation metrics compared to the external surrogate-based 5D model. The proposed techniques for out-of-slice target motion estimation demonstrated accuracy likely sufficient for clinical use. Results indicate the mSGA model may provide higher accuracy, however, the external surrogate-based model allows for unbiased in vivo accuracy evaluation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30570755
doi: 10.1002/mp.13350
pmc: PMC6370044
mid: NIHMS1002976
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
465-474Subventions
Organisme : NIBIB NIH HHS
ID : T32 EB002101
Pays : United States
Organisme : National Institutes of Health
ID : 2T32EB2101-41
Informations de copyright
© 2018 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Références
Science. 2000 Dec 22;290(5500):2323-6
pubmed: 11125150
Magn Reson Med. 2002 Jun;47(6):1202-10
pubmed: 12111967
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 Mar 1;55(3):659-68
pubmed: 12573753
Eur Radiol. 2003 Nov;13(11):2409-18
pubmed: 12928954
Phys Med Biol. 2004 Feb 7;49(3):425-40
pubmed: 15012011
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 Nov 1;63(3):921-9
pubmed: 16140468
Med Phys. 2006 Oct;33(10):3874-900
pubmed: 17089851
Med Phys. 2008 May;35(5):2050-61
pubmed: 18561681
Radiother Oncol. 2009 Jun;91(3):296-300
pubmed: 19297048
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2010 Jan;29(1):196-205
pubmed: 19923044
Front Radiat Ther Oncol. 2011;43:271-91
pubmed: 21625158
Med Phys. 2013 May;40(5):051718
pubmed: 23635266
Front Neuroinform. 2014 Jan 16;7:50
pubmed: 24474917
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 May 1;89(1):191-8
pubmed: 24613815
Inf Process Med Imaging. 2013;23:232-43
pubmed: 24683972
Semin Radiat Oncol. 2014 Jul;24(3):196-9
pubmed: 24931092
Med Image Anal. 2014 Oct;18(7):939-52
pubmed: 24972374
Med Phys. 2015 Jul;42(7):4033-42
pubmed: 26133604
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 Nov 15;93(4):925-33
pubmed: 26530763
Phys Med Biol. 2016 Jan 21;61(2):872-87
pubmed: 26740517
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016 Jun 1;95(2):844-53
pubmed: 27131085
Med Image Anal. 2017 Jan;35:83-100
pubmed: 27343436
Phys Med Biol. 2016 Jul 21;61(14):5335-55
pubmed: 27362636
Phys Med Biol. 2017 Jun 7;62(11):4525-4540
pubmed: 28425431
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017 May;18(3):163-169
pubmed: 28436094
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Jun 1;98(2):454-462
pubmed: 28463165
Phys Med Biol. 2017 Dec 14;63(1):01NT01
pubmed: 29087963
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018 Nov 15;102(4):885-894
pubmed: 29970314
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018 Aug 1;101(5):1057-1060
pubmed: 30012525