Dataset Information

Prospective evaluation of in vivo and phantom repeatability and reproducibility of diffusion-weighted MRI sequences on 1.5 T MRI-linear accelerator (MR-Linac) and MR simulator devices for head and neck cancers.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) on MRI-linear accelerator (MR-linac) systems can potentially be used for monitoring treatment response and adaptive radiotherapy in head and neck cancers (HNC) but requires extensive validation. We performed technical validation to compare six total DWI sequences on an MR-linac and MR simulator (MR sim) in patients, volunteers, and phantoms.

Methods

Ten human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancer patients and ten healthy volunteers underwent DWI on a 1.5 T MR-linac with three DWI sequences: echo planar imaging (EPI), split acquisition of fast spin echo signals (SPLICE), and turbo spin echo (TSE). Volunteers were also imaged on a 1.5 T MR sim with three sequences: EPI, BLADE (vendor tradename), and readout segmentation of long variable echo trains (RESOLVE). Participants underwent two scan sessions per device and two repeats of each sequence per session. Repeatability and reproducibility within-subject coefficient of variation (wCV) of mean ADC were calculated for tumors and lymph nodes (patients) and parotid glands (volunteers). ADC bias, repeatability/reproducibility metrics, SNR, and geometric distortion were quantified using a phantom.

Results

In vivo repeatability/reproducibility wCV for parotids were 5.41%/6.72%, 3.83%/8.80%, 5.66%/10.03%, 3.44%/5.70%, 5.04%/5.66%, 4.23%/7.36% for EPI_MR-linac, SPLICE, TSE, EPI_{MR sim}, BLADE, RESOLVE. Repeatability/reproducibility wCV for EPI_MR-linac, SPLICE, TSE were 9.64%/10.28%, 7.84%/8.96%, 7.60%/11.68% for tumors and 7.80%/9.95%, 7.23%/8.48%, 10.82%/10.44% for nodes. All sequences except TSE had phantom ADC biases within ± 0.1x10^-3 mm²/s for most vials (EPI_MR-linac, SPLICE, and BLADE had 2, 3, and 1 vials out of 13 with larger biases, respectively). SNR of b = 0 images was 87.3, 180.5, 161.3, 171.0, 171.9, 130.2 for EPI_MR-linac, SPLICE, TSE, EPI_{MR sim}, BLADE, RESOLVE.

Conclusion

MR-linac DWI sequences demonstrated near-comparable performance to MR sim sequences and warrant further clinical validation for treatment response assessment in HNC.

SUBMITTER: McDonald BA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10527507 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prospective evaluation of in vivo and phantom repeatability and reproducibility of diffusion-weighted MRI sequences on 1.5 T MRI-linear accelerator (MR-Linac) and MR simulator devices for head and neck cancers.

McDonald Brigid A BA Salzillo Travis T Mulder Samuel S Ahmed Sara S Dresner Alex A Preston Kathryn K He Renjie R Christodouleas John J Mohamed Abdallah S R ASR Philippens Marielle M van Houdt Petra P Thorwarth Daniela D Wang Jihong J Shukla Dave Amita A Boss Michael M Fuller Clifton D CD

Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology 20230519

<h4>Introduction</h4>Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) on MRI-linear accelerator (MR-linac) systems can potentially be used for monitoring treatment response and adaptive radiotherapy in head and neck cancers (HNC) but requires extensive validation. We performed technical validation to compare six total DWI sequences on an MR-linac and MR simulator (MR sim) in patients, volunteers, and phantoms.<h4>Methods</h4>Ten human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancer patients and ten healthy volunte ...[more]

PMID: 37211282

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction: Magnetic resonance imaging-linear accelerator radiotherapy is an innovative technology that requires special consideration for secondary electron interactions within the magnetic field, which can alter dose deposition at air-tissue interfaces. As part of ongoing quality assurance and quality improvement of new radiotherapy technologies, the purpose of this study was to evaluate skin dose modelled from the treatment planning systems of a magnetic resonance imaging-linear accelerator and a conventional linear accelerator, and then correlate with in vivo measurements of delivered skin dose from each linear accelerator. Methods: In this prospective cohort study, 37 consecutive glioma patients had treatment planning completed and approved prior to radiotherapy initiation using commercial treatment planning systems: a Monte Carlo-based algorithm for magnetic resonance imaging-linear accelerator or a convolution-based algorithm for conventional linear accelerator. In vivo skin dose was measured using an optically stimulated luminescent dosimeter. Results: Monte Carlo-based magnetic resonance imaging-linear accelerator plans and convolution-based conventional linear accelerator plans had similar dosimetric parameters for target volumes and organs-at-risk. However, magnetic resonance imaging-linear accelerator plans had 1.52 Gy higher mean dose to air cavities (P < .0001) and 1.10 Gy higher mean dose to skin (P < .0001). In vivo skin dose was 14.5% greater for magnetic resonance imaging-linear accelerator treatments (P = .0027), and was more accurately predicted by Monte Carlo-based calculation (ρ = 0.95, P < .0001) versus convolution-based (ρ = 0.80, P = .0096). Conclusion: This is the first prospective dosimetric comparison of glioma patients clinically treated on both magnetic resonance imaging-linear accelerator and conventional linear accelerator. Our findings suggest that skin doses were significantly greater with magnetic resonance imaging-linear accelerator plans but correlated better with in vivo measurements of actual skin dose from delivered treatments. Future magnetic resonance imaging-linear accelerator planning processes are being designed to account for skin dosimetry and treatment delivery.

Project description:PurposeTo describe and report longitudinal quality assurance (QA) measurements for the mechanical and dosimetric performance of an Elekta Unity MR-linac during the first year of clinical use in our institution.Materials and methodsThe mechanical and dosimetric performance of the MR-linac was evaluated with daily, weekly, monthly, and annual QA testing. The measurements monitor the size of the radiation isocenter, the MR-to-MV isocenter concordance, MLC and jaw position, the accuracy and reproducibility of step-and-shoot delivery, radiation output and beam profile constancy, and patient-specific QA for the first 50 treatments in our institution. Results from end-to-end QA using anthropomorphic phantoms are also included as a reference for baseline comparisons. Measurements were performed in water or water-equivalent plastic using ion chambers of various sizes, an ion chamber array, MR-compatible 2D/3D diode array, portal imager, MRI, and radiochromic film.ResultsThe diameter of the radiation isocenter and the distance between the MR/MV isocenters was (μ ± σ) 0.39 ± 0.01 mm and 0.89 ± 0.05 mm, respectively. Trend analysis shows both measurements to be well within the tolerance of 1.0 mm. MLC and jaw positional accuracy was within 1.0 mm while the dosimetric performance of step-and-shoot delivery was within 2.0%, irrespective of gantry angle. Radiation output and beam profile constancy were within 2.0% and 1.0%, respectively. End-to-end testing performed with ion-chamber and radiochromic film showed excellent agreement with treatment plan. Patient-specific QA using a 3D diode array identified gantry angles with low-pass rates allowing for improvements in plan quality after necessary adjustments.ConclusionThe MR-linac operates within the guidelines of current recommendations for linear accelerator performance, stability, and safety. The analysis of the data supports the recently published guidance in establishing clinically acceptable tolerance levels for relative and absolute measurements.

Project description:PurposeTo compare the bias and inherent reliability of the quantitative (T1 and T2 ) imaging metrics generated from the magnetic resonance fingerprinting (MRF) technique using the ISMRM/NIST system phantom in an international multicenter setting.MethodISMRM/NIST MRI system phantom provides standard reference T1 and T2 relaxation values (vendor-provided) for each of the 14 vials in T1 and T2 arrays. MRF-SSFP scans repeated over 30 days on GE 1.5 and 3.0 T scanners at three collaborative centers. MRF estimated T1, and T2 values averaged over 30 days were compared with the phantom vendor-provided and spin-echo (SE) based convention gold standard (GS) method. Repeatability and reproducibility were characterized by the within-case coefficient of variation (wCV) of the MRF data acquired over 30 days, along with the biases.ResultFor the wide ranges of MRF estimated T1 values, vials #1-8 (T1 relaxation time between 2033 and 184 ms) exhibited a wCV less than 3% and 4%, respectively, on 3.0 and 1.5 T scanners. T2 values in vials #1-8 (T2 relaxation, 1044-45 ms) have shown wCV to be <7% on both 3.0 and 1.5 T scanners. A stronger linear correlation overall for T1 (R2 = 0.9960 and 0.9963 at center-1 and center-2 on 3.0 T scanner, and R2 = 0.9951 and 0.9988 at center-1 and center-3 on 1.5 T scanner) compared to T2 (R2 = 0.9971 and 0.9972 at center-1 and center-2 on 3.0 T scanner, and R2 = 0.9815 and 0.9754 at center-1 and center-3 on 1.5 T scanner). Bland-Altman (BA) analysis showed MRF based T1 and T2 values were within the limit of agreement (LOA) except for one data point. The mean difference or bias and 95% lower bound (LB) and upper bound (UB) LOA are reported in the format; mean bias: 95% LB LOA: 95% UB LOA. The biases for T1 values were 21.34: -50.00: 92.69, 21.32: -47.29: 89.94 ms, and for T2 values were -19.88: -42.37: 2.61, -19.06: -43.58: 5.45 ms on 3.0 T scanner at center-1 and center-2, respectively. Similarly, on 1.5 T scanner biases for T1 values were 26.54: -53.41: 106.50, 9.997: -51.94: 71.94 ms, and for T2 values were -23.84: -135.40: 87.76, -37.30: 134.30: 59.73 ms at center-1 and center-3, respectively. Additionally, the correlation between the SE based GS and MRF estimated T1 and T2 values (R2 = 0.9969 and 0.9977) showed a similar trend as we observed between vendor-provided and MRF estimated T1 and T2 values (R2 = 0.9963 and 0.9972). In addition to correlation, BA analysis showed that all the vials are within the LOA between the GS and vendor-provided for the T1 values and except one vial for T2 . All the vials are within the LOA between GS and MRF except one vial in T1 and T2 array. The wCV for reproducibility was <3% for both T1 and T2 values in vials #1-8, for all the 14 vials, wCV calculated for reproducibility was <4% for T1 values and <5% for T2 .ConclusionThis study shows that MRF is highly repeatable (wCV <4% for T1 and <7% for T2 ) and reproducible (wCV < 3% for both T1 and T2 ) in certain vials (vials #1-8).

Dataset Information

Prospective evaluation of in vivo and phantom repeatability and reproducibility of diffusion-weighted MRI sequences on 1.5 T MRI-linear accelerator (MR-Linac) and MR simulator devices for head and neck cancers.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Prospective evaluation of in vivo and phantom repeatability and reproducibility of diffusion-weighted MRI sequences on 1.5 T MRI-linear accelerator (MR-Linac) and MR simulator devices for head and neck cancers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets