Premium
SU‐D‐207A‐05: Investigating Sparse‐Sampled MRI for Motion Management in Thoracic Radiotherapy
Author(s) -
Sabouri P,
Arai T,
Sawant A
Publication year - 2016
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 - 10.1118/1.4955652
Subject(s) - imaging phantom , computer vision , image quality , artificial intelligence , trajectory , iterative reconstruction , nuclear medicine , computer science , breathing , scanner , physics , biomedical engineering , medicine , image (mathematics) , astronomy , anatomy
Purpose: Sparse sampling and reconstruction‐based MRI techniques represent an attractive strategy to achieve sufficiently high image acquisition speed while maintaining image quality for the task of radiotherapy guidance. In this study, we examine rapid dynamic MRI using a sparse sampling sequence k‐t BLAST in capturing motion‐induced, cycle‐to‐cycle variations in tumor position. We investigate the utility of long‐term MRI‐based motion monitoring as a means of better characterizing respiration‐induced tumor motion compared to a single‐cycle 4DCT. Methods: An MRI‐compatible, programmable, deformable lung motion phantom with eleven 1.5 ml water marker tubes was placed inside a 3.0 T whole‐body MR scanner (Philips Ingenia). The phantom was programmed with 10 lung tumor motion traces previously recorded using the Synchrony system. 2D+t image sequences of a coronal slice were acquired using a balanced‐SSFP sequence combined with k‐t BLAST (accn=3, resolution=0.66×0.66×5 mm3; acquisition time = 110 ms/slice). kV fluoroscopic (ground truth) and 4DCT imaging was performed with the same phantom setup and motion trajectories. Marker positions in all three modalities were segmented and tracked using an opensource deformable image registration package, NiftyReg. Results: Marker trajectories obtained from rapid MRI exhibited <1 mm error compared to kv Fluoro trajectories in the presence of complex motion including baseline shifts and changes in respiratory amplitude, indicating the ability of MRI to monitor motion with adequate geometric fidelity for the purpose of radiotherapy guidance. In contrast, the trajectory derived from 4DCT exhibited significant errors up to 6 mm due to cycle‐to‐cycle variations and baseline shifts. Consequently, 4DCT was found to underestimate the range of marker motion by as much as 50%. Conclusion: Dynamic MRI is a promising tool for radiotherapy motion management as it permits for longterm, dose‐free, soft‐tissue‐based monitoring of motion, yielding richer and more accurate information about tumor position and motion range compared to the current state‐of‐the‐art, 4DCT. This work was partially supported through research funding from National Institutes of Health (R01CA169102).