Clinical evaluation of 4D MRI in the delineation of gross and internal tumor volumes in comparison with 4DCT.
Four-Dimensional Computed Tomography
/ methods
Humans
Lung Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
/ methods
Movement
Organs at Risk
/ radiation effects
Prospective Studies
Radiotherapy Dosage
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated
/ methods
Respiration
Respiratory-Gated Imaging Techniques
/ methods
Tumor Burden
magnetic resonance imaging
motion artifacts
respiratory motion simulation
treatment planning
tumor delineation
Journal
Journal of applied clinical medical physics
ISSN: 1526-9914
Titre abrégé: J Appl Clin Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101089176
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2019
Sep 2019
Historique:
received:
30
03
2019
revised:
15
06
2019
accepted:
23
07
2019
entrez:
21
9
2019
pubmed:
21
9
2019
medline:
27
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate clinical utility of respiratory-correlated (RC) four-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging (4DMRI) for lung tumor delineation and motion assessment, in comparison with the current clinical standard of 4D computed tomography (4DCT). A prospective T2-weighted (T2w) RC-4DMRI technique was applied to acquire coronal 4DMRI images for 14 lung cancer patients (16 lesions) during free breathing (FB) under an IRB-approved protocol, together with a breath-hold (BH) T1w 3DMRI and axial 4DMRI. Clinical simulation CT and 4DCT were acquired within 2 h. An internal navigator was applied to trigger amplitude-binned 4DMRI acquisition whereas a bellows or real-time position management (RPM) was used in the 4DCT reconstruction. Six radiation oncologists manually delineated the gross and internal tumor volumes (GTV and ITV) in 399 3D images using programmed clinical workflows under a tumor delineation guideline. The ITV was the union of GTVs within the breathing cycle without margin. Average GTV and motion range were assessed and ITV variation between 4DMRI and 4DCT was evaluated using the Dice similarity index, mean distance agreement (MDA), and volume difference. The mean tumor volume is similar between 4DCT (GTV Average GTVs are similar between T2w-4DMRI and 4DCT, but smaller by 25% in T1w BH MRI. Physician training and breathing coaching may be necessary to reduce ITV variability between 4DMRI and 4DCT. Four-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging is a promising and viable technique for clinical lung tumor delineation and motion assessment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31538719
doi: 10.1002/acm2.12699
pmc: PMC6753727
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
51-60Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA008748
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R25 CA020449
Pays : United States
Organisme : MSK fellowship program
ID : R25CA020449
Informations de copyright
© 2019 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Références
Med Phys. 1999 May;26(5):715-20
pubmed: 10360531
Med Phys. 2000 Jul;27(7):1573-8
pubmed: 10947260
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004 Feb;19(2):202-8
pubmed: 14745754
Invest Radiol. 2006 May;41(5):443-8
pubmed: 16625107
Med Phys. 2006 Sep;33(9):3390-8
pubmed: 17022235
Med Phys. 2006 Oct;33(10):3874-900
pubmed: 17089851
Phys Med Biol. 2007 Jan 21;52(2):365-73
pubmed: 17202620
Phys Med Biol. 2007 Mar 21;52(6):1547-64
pubmed: 17327648
Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2008 Feb;7(1):67-81
pubmed: 18198927
Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2008 May;16(2):275-89, ix
pubmed: 18474332
Eur J Radiol. 2009 Oct;72(1):104-13
pubmed: 18640802
Med Phys. 2008 Nov;35(11):4974-81
pubmed: 19070231
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Aug 1;80(5):1573-80
pubmed: 21163584
Phys Med Biol. 2011 Jul 7;56(13):3773-85
pubmed: 21628775
Radiology. 2011 Nov;261(2):598-604
pubmed: 21852569
Lung Cancer. 2012 Mar;75(3):332-5
pubmed: 21890229
Med Phys. 2011 Dec;38(12):6384-94
pubmed: 22149822
Phys Med Biol. 2012 Nov 21;57(22):7579-98
pubmed: 23103415
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013 May 1;86(1):198-204
pubmed: 23414769
Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2013 Oct;12(5):429-46
pubmed: 23617289
Med Phys. 2013 May;40(5):051909
pubmed: 23635279
Med Phys. 2013 Sep;40(9):091712
pubmed: 24007145
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2014 May 08;15(3):4434
pubmed: 24892328
Med Phys. 2015 May;42(5):2296-310
pubmed: 25979024
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016 Jun 1;95(2):844-53
pubmed: 27131085
Med Phys. 2016 Jun;43(6):2807-2820
pubmed: 27277029
Front Oncol. 2016 Oct 13;6:215
pubmed: 27790408
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Mar 1;97(3):596-605
pubmed: 28011048
Invest Radiol. 2017 Oct;52(10):563-573
pubmed: 28459800
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Jun 1;98(2):454-462
pubmed: 28463165
Radiother Oncol. 2018 Feb;126(2):339-346
pubmed: 28992962
Med Phys. 2018 Jan;45(1):307-313
pubmed: 29159957
Br J Radiol. 2018 Feb;91(1083):20170522
pubmed: 29166129
Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2017 Dec;6(6):689-707
pubmed: 29218271
Med Phys. 2018 Jul;45(7):3161-3172
pubmed: 29757471
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018 Sep;19(5):598-608
pubmed: 30112797