Audit feasibility for geometric distortion in magnetic resonance imaging for radiotherapy.
Audit
Geometric distortion
Magnetic resonance imaging
Quality assurance
Radiotherapy
Journal
Physics and imaging in radiation oncology
ISSN: 2405-6316
Titre abrégé: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101704276
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2020
Jul 2020
Historique:
received:
29
02
2020
revised:
27
06
2020
accepted:
22
07
2020
entrez:
9
11
2020
pubmed:
10
11
2020
medline:
10
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is increasingly being used in radiotherapy (RT). However, geometric distortions are a known challenge of using MRI in RT. The aim of this study was to demonstrate feasibility of a national audit of MRI geometric distortions. This was achieved by assessing large field of view (FOV) MRI distortions on a number of scanners used clinically for RT. MRI scans of a large FOV MRI geometric distortion phantom were acquired on 11 MRI scanners that are used clinically for RT in the UK. The mean and maximum distortions and variance between scanners were reported at different distances from the isocentre. For a small FOV representing a brain (100-150 mm from isocentre) all distortions were < 2 mm except for the maximum distortion of one scanner. For a large FOV representing a head and neck/pelvis (200-250 mm from isocentre) mean distortions were < 2 mm except for one scanner, maximum distortions were > 10 mm in some cases. The variance between scanners was low and was found to increase with distance from isocentre. This study demonstrated feasibility of the technique to be repeated in a country wide geometric distortion audit of all MRI scanners used clinically for RT. Recommendations were made for performing such an audit and how to derive acceptable limits of distortion in such an audit.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is increasingly being used in radiotherapy (RT). However, geometric distortions are a known challenge of using MRI in RT. The aim of this study was to demonstrate feasibility of a national audit of MRI geometric distortions. This was achieved by assessing large field of view (FOV) MRI distortions on a number of scanners used clinically for RT.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
MRI scans of a large FOV MRI geometric distortion phantom were acquired on 11 MRI scanners that are used clinically for RT in the UK. The mean and maximum distortions and variance between scanners were reported at different distances from the isocentre.
RESULTS
RESULTS
For a small FOV representing a brain (100-150 mm from isocentre) all distortions were < 2 mm except for the maximum distortion of one scanner. For a large FOV representing a head and neck/pelvis (200-250 mm from isocentre) mean distortions were < 2 mm except for one scanner, maximum distortions were > 10 mm in some cases. The variance between scanners was low and was found to increase with distance from isocentre.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study demonstrated feasibility of the technique to be repeated in a country wide geometric distortion audit of all MRI scanners used clinically for RT. Recommendations were made for performing such an audit and how to derive acceptable limits of distortion in such an audit.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33163632
doi: 10.1016/j.phro.2020.07.004
pii: S2405-6316(20)30038-5
pmc: PMC7607582
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
80-84Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
Med Phys. 2007 Feb;34(2):388-99
pubmed: 17388155
Phys Med Biol. 2018 Feb 26;63(5):05TR01
pubmed: 29393071
Phys Med Biol. 2017 Jan 21;62(2):N18-N31
pubmed: 28033119
Phys Med Biol. 2017 Apr 21;62(8):2976-2989
pubmed: 28306555
Phys Med. 2019 Jun;62:47-52
pubmed: 31153398
Phys Med Biol. 2015 Apr 21;60(8):3097-109
pubmed: 25803177
Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2017 Dec;16(6):1120-1129
pubmed: 29332453
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016 Sep;17(5):7-19
pubmed: 28297426
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 Dec 1;90(5):1234-41
pubmed: 25442348
Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2013 Oct;12(5):429-46
pubmed: 23617289
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016 Jul 15;95(4):1304-16
pubmed: 27354136
Med Phys. 2015 Oct;42(10):5955-60
pubmed: 26429270
Br J Radiol. 2017 May;90(1073):20160667
pubmed: 28256898
Phys Med Biol. 2015 Nov 21;60(22):R323-61
pubmed: 26509844
Magn Reson Imaging. 2004 Nov;22(9):1211-21
pubmed: 15607092
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013 Aug;38(2):448-53
pubmed: 23172675
Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. 2014 Mar;37(1):103-13
pubmed: 24519001
Magn Reson Imaging. 2016 Jun;34(5):645-53
pubmed: 26795695
Strahlenther Onkol. 2001 Feb;177(2):59-73
pubmed: 11233837
Radiat Oncol. 2009 Nov 17;4:54
pubmed: 19919713
Med Phys. 2015 Apr;42(4):1982-91
pubmed: 25832089
Med Phys. 1994 Apr;21(4):581-618
pubmed: 8058027
Med Phys. 2015 Oct;42(10):6090-7
pubmed: 26429284
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 Dec 1;93(5):1144-53
pubmed: 26581150
Radiother Oncol. 2008 Jan;86(1):25-9
pubmed: 18023488