SU‐E‐T‐277: Image‐Guided Radiation Therapy: The Accuracy of CT‐MR Fusion for Prostate Treatment Planning

J. Xue, H. Liu, X. Chen, M. Lin, Z. Dong, L. Wang, L. Chen, C. ma

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: CT and MR imaging has been widely accepted as a practical approach for both accurate delineation (using MR data) and dose calculation (using CT data) for image‐guided radiotherapy (IGRT) of prostate cancer. This work investigates the accuracy of CT and MR fusion in target (prostate) delineation for prostate IGRT treatment planning. Methods: Twenty prostate patients were included in this study. Each patient underwent CT‐and MR‐simulation prior to the IMRT or RapidArc treatment. Paired CT‐MR images were obtained on a GE 4D CT scanner and a GE 1.5T MR scanner in our department. MR and CT scans were performed within 30min to minimize organ or structure changes except for patients implanted with Calypso Beacons who received MR scans prior to their Beacon implantation and CT scans 1 week after. External contour variations were quantified from the isocentric slices on both CT and MRI images. Prostate volume was used to evaluate the accuracy of image fusion, which was mainly based on bony structure matching. Results: The maximal differences in lateral dimensions ranged 0.1 to 1.2 cm for patients with lateral dimensions of 33.0–52.4 cm. The vertical dimensions differed by 0.1 – 1.4cm for patients with vertical dimensions of 18.8 –33.1 cm. In general, the contour variations increased with the patient size. There was a residual fusion error for the prostate gland ranging from 0.1 to 0.5cm (average 0.16cm) after bony structure matching. Mismatch occurred when there was a large difference in the bladder/rectal volume between CT and MRI. Conclusions: Large contour variations may occur for large patients due to obesity, which should not change the planning dose distribution significantly. On the whole, the geometrical distortion and target shift between CT and MR images are not obvious and mostly clinically insignificant for treatment planning assuming a fusion uncertainty of 2mm.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Number of pages1
JournalMedical Physics
Volume38
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2011

Fingerprint

Prostate
Radiotherapy
Vertical Dimension
Therapeutics
Four-Dimensional Computed Tomography
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography
Uncertainty
Prostatic Neoplasms
Urinary Bladder
Obesity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

SU‐E‐T‐277 : Image‐Guided Radiation Therapy: The Accuracy of CT‐MR Fusion for Prostate Treatment Planning. / Xue, J.; Liu, H.; Chen, X.; Lin, M.; Dong, Z.; Wang, L.; Chen, L.; ma, C.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 38, No. 6, 01.01.2011.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Xue, J. ; Liu, H. ; Chen, X. ; Lin, M. ; Dong, Z. ; Wang, L. ; Chen, L. ; ma, C. / SU‐E‐T‐277 : Image‐Guided Radiation Therapy: The Accuracy of CT‐MR Fusion for Prostate Treatment Planning. In: Medical Physics. 2011 ; Vol. 38, No. 6.
@article{3184b181733e4a8591634e18028e914d,
title = "SU‐E‐T‐277: Image‐Guided Radiation Therapy: The Accuracy of CT‐MR Fusion for Prostate Treatment Planning",
abstract = "Purpose: CT and MR imaging has been widely accepted as a practical approach for both accurate delineation (using MR data) and dose calculation (using CT data) for image‐guided radiotherapy (IGRT) of prostate cancer. This work investigates the accuracy of CT and MR fusion in target (prostate) delineation for prostate IGRT treatment planning. Methods: Twenty prostate patients were included in this study. Each patient underwent CT‐and MR‐simulation prior to the IMRT or RapidArc treatment. Paired CT‐MR images were obtained on a GE 4D CT scanner and a GE 1.5T MR scanner in our department. MR and CT scans were performed within 30min to minimize organ or structure changes except for patients implanted with Calypso Beacons who received MR scans prior to their Beacon implantation and CT scans 1 week after. External contour variations were quantified from the isocentric slices on both CT and MRI images. Prostate volume was used to evaluate the accuracy of image fusion, which was mainly based on bony structure matching. Results: The maximal differences in lateral dimensions ranged 0.1 to 1.2 cm for patients with lateral dimensions of 33.0–52.4 cm. The vertical dimensions differed by 0.1 – 1.4cm for patients with vertical dimensions of 18.8 –33.1 cm. In general, the contour variations increased with the patient size. There was a residual fusion error for the prostate gland ranging from 0.1 to 0.5cm (average 0.16cm) after bony structure matching. Mismatch occurred when there was a large difference in the bladder/rectal volume between CT and MRI. Conclusions: Large contour variations may occur for large patients due to obesity, which should not change the planning dose distribution significantly. On the whole, the geometrical distortion and target shift between CT and MR images are not obvious and mostly clinically insignificant for treatment planning assuming a fusion uncertainty of 2mm.",
author = "J. Xue and H. Liu and X. Chen and M. Lin and Z. Dong and L. Wang and L. Chen and C. ma",
year = "2011",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1118/1.3612228",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "38",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐E‐T‐277

T2 - Image‐Guided Radiation Therapy: The Accuracy of CT‐MR Fusion for Prostate Treatment Planning

AU - Xue, J.

AU - Liu, H.

AU - Chen, X.

AU - Lin, M.

AU - Dong, Z.

AU - Wang, L.

AU - Chen, L.

AU - ma, C.

PY - 2011/1/1

Y1 - 2011/1/1

N2 - Purpose: CT and MR imaging has been widely accepted as a practical approach for both accurate delineation (using MR data) and dose calculation (using CT data) for image‐guided radiotherapy (IGRT) of prostate cancer. This work investigates the accuracy of CT and MR fusion in target (prostate) delineation for prostate IGRT treatment planning. Methods: Twenty prostate patients were included in this study. Each patient underwent CT‐and MR‐simulation prior to the IMRT or RapidArc treatment. Paired CT‐MR images were obtained on a GE 4D CT scanner and a GE 1.5T MR scanner in our department. MR and CT scans were performed within 30min to minimize organ or structure changes except for patients implanted with Calypso Beacons who received MR scans prior to their Beacon implantation and CT scans 1 week after. External contour variations were quantified from the isocentric slices on both CT and MRI images. Prostate volume was used to evaluate the accuracy of image fusion, which was mainly based on bony structure matching. Results: The maximal differences in lateral dimensions ranged 0.1 to 1.2 cm for patients with lateral dimensions of 33.0–52.4 cm. The vertical dimensions differed by 0.1 – 1.4cm for patients with vertical dimensions of 18.8 –33.1 cm. In general, the contour variations increased with the patient size. There was a residual fusion error for the prostate gland ranging from 0.1 to 0.5cm (average 0.16cm) after bony structure matching. Mismatch occurred when there was a large difference in the bladder/rectal volume between CT and MRI. Conclusions: Large contour variations may occur for large patients due to obesity, which should not change the planning dose distribution significantly. On the whole, the geometrical distortion and target shift between CT and MR images are not obvious and mostly clinically insignificant for treatment planning assuming a fusion uncertainty of 2mm.

AB - Purpose: CT and MR imaging has been widely accepted as a practical approach for both accurate delineation (using MR data) and dose calculation (using CT data) for image‐guided radiotherapy (IGRT) of prostate cancer. This work investigates the accuracy of CT and MR fusion in target (prostate) delineation for prostate IGRT treatment planning. Methods: Twenty prostate patients were included in this study. Each patient underwent CT‐and MR‐simulation prior to the IMRT or RapidArc treatment. Paired CT‐MR images were obtained on a GE 4D CT scanner and a GE 1.5T MR scanner in our department. MR and CT scans were performed within 30min to minimize organ or structure changes except for patients implanted with Calypso Beacons who received MR scans prior to their Beacon implantation and CT scans 1 week after. External contour variations were quantified from the isocentric slices on both CT and MRI images. Prostate volume was used to evaluate the accuracy of image fusion, which was mainly based on bony structure matching. Results: The maximal differences in lateral dimensions ranged 0.1 to 1.2 cm for patients with lateral dimensions of 33.0–52.4 cm. The vertical dimensions differed by 0.1 – 1.4cm for patients with vertical dimensions of 18.8 –33.1 cm. In general, the contour variations increased with the patient size. There was a residual fusion error for the prostate gland ranging from 0.1 to 0.5cm (average 0.16cm) after bony structure matching. Mismatch occurred when there was a large difference in the bladder/rectal volume between CT and MRI. Conclusions: Large contour variations may occur for large patients due to obesity, which should not change the planning dose distribution significantly. On the whole, the geometrical distortion and target shift between CT and MR images are not obvious and mostly clinically insignificant for treatment planning assuming a fusion uncertainty of 2mm.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024783050&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024783050&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.3612228

DO - 10.1118/1.3612228

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85024783050

VL - 38

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -