MRI simulation: end-to-end testing for prostate radiation therapy using geometric pelvic MRI phantoms. (24th March 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Sun, Jidi; Dowling, Jason; Pichler, Peter; Menk, Fred; Rivest-Henault, David; Lambert, Jonathan; Parker, Joel; Arm, Jameen; Best, Leah; Martin, Jarad; Denham, James W; Greer, Peter B
• Is Part Of: Physics in medicine & biology. Volume 60:Number 8(2015:Apr.)
• Page Start: 3097
• Page End: 3109
• Publication Date: 2015-03-24
• Subjects: prostate cancer -- radiotherapy treatment planning -- MRI simulation; Biophysics -- Periodicals; Medical physics -- Periodicals; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/60/8/3097
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0031-9155

Abstract

Abstract: To clinically implement MRI simulation or MRI-alone treatment planning requires comprehensive end-to-end testing to ensure an accurate process. The purpose of this study was to design and build a geometric phantom simulating a human male pelvis that is suitable for both CT and MRI scanning and use it to test geometric and dosimetric aspects of MRI simulation including treatment planning and digitally reconstructed radiograph (DRR) generation. A liquid filled pelvic shaped phantom with simulated pelvic organs was scanned in a 3T MRI simulator with dedicated radiotherapy couch-top, laser bridge and pelvic coil mounts. A second phantom with the same external shape but with an internal distortion grid was used to quantify the distortion of the MR image. Both phantoms were also CT scanned as the gold-standard for both geometry and dosimetry. Deformable image registration was used to quantify the MR distortion. Dose comparison was made using a seven-field IMRT plan developed on the CT scan with the fluences copied to the MR image and recalculated using bulk electron densities. Without correction the maximum distortion of the MR compared with the CT scan was 7.5 mm across the pelvis, while this was reduced to 2.6 and 1.7 mm by the vendor's 2D and 3D correction algorithms, respectively. Within the locations of the internal organs of interest, the distortion was <1.5 and <1 mm with 2D and 3D correction algorithms, respectively. The dose at the prostate isocentre calculated on CT and MRI images differed by 0.01% (1.1 cGy). Positioning shifts were within 1 mm when setup was performed using MRI generated DRRs compared to setup using CT DRRs. The MRI pelvic phantom allows end-to-end testing of the MRI simulation workflow with comparison to the gold-standard CT based process. MRI simulation was found to be geometrically accurate with organ dimensions, dose distributions and DRR based setup within acceptable limits compared to CT.