Premium
SU‐E‐J‐231: Comparison of 3D Angiogram and MRI in Delineating the AVM Target for Frameless Stereotactic Radiosurgery
Author(s) -
Avkshtol V,
Tanny S,
Reddy K,
Chen C,
Parsai E
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.4888284
Subject(s) - radiosurgery , digital subtraction angiography , medicine , nuclear medicine , magnetic resonance imaging , arteriovenous malformation , radiology , angiography , subtraction , centroid , radiation treatment planning , radiation therapy , computer science , artificial intelligence , mathematics , arithmetic
Purpose: Stereotactic radiation therapy (SRT) provides an excellent alternative to embolization and surgical excision for the management of appropriately selected cerebral arteriovenous malformations (AVMs). The currently accepted standard for delineating AVMs is planar digital subtraction angiography (DSA). DSA can be used to acquire a 3D data set that preserves osseous structures (3D‐DA) at the time of the angiography for SRT planning. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provides an alternative noninvasive method of visualizing the AVM nidus with comparable spatial resolution. We utilized 3D‐DA and T1 post‐contrast MRI data to evaluate the differences in SRT target volumes. Methods: Four patients underwent 3D‐DA and high‐resolution MRI. 3D T1 post‐contrast images were obtained in all three reconstruction planes. A planning CT was fused with MRI and 3D‐DA data sets. The AVMs were contoured utilizing one of the image sets at a time. Target volume, centroid, and maximum and minimum dimensions were analyzed for each patient. Results: Targets delineated using post‐contrast MRI demonstrated a larger mean volume. AVMs >2 cc were found to have a larger difference between MRI and 3D‐DA volumes. Larger AVMs also demonstrated a smaller relative uncertainty in contour centroid position (1 mm). AVM targets <2 cc had smaller absolute differences in volume, but larger differences in contour centroid position (2.5 mm). MRI targets demonstrated a more irregular shape compared to 3D‐DA targets. Conclusions: Our preliminary data supports the use of MRI alone to delineate AVM targets >2 cc. The greater centroid stability for AVMs >2 cc ensures accurate target localization during image fusion. The larger MRI target volumes did not result in prohibitively greater volumes of normal brain tissue receiving the prescription dose. The larger centroid instability for AVMs <2 cc precludes the use of MRI alone for target delineation. We recommend incorporating a 3D‐DA for these patients.