Characterization of positioning uncertainties in PET‐CT‐MR trimodality solutions for radiotherapy. Issue 7 (28th April 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hinault, Pauline; Gardin, Isabelle; Gouel, Pierrick; Decazes, Pierre; Thureau, Sebastien; Veresezan, Ovidiu; Souchay, Henri; Vera, Pierre; Gensanne, David
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 23:Issue 7(2022)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2022-04-28
• Subjects: multimodality imaging -- positioning -- radiotherapy; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13617
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the positioning uncertainties of two PET/CT‐MR imaging setups, C1 and C2. Because the PET/CT data were acquired on the same hybrid device with automatic image registration, experiments were conducted using CT‐MRI data. In C1, a transfer table was used, which allowed the patient to move from one imager to another while maintaining the same position. In C2, the patient stood up and was positioned in the same radiotherapy treatment position on each imager. The two setups provided a set of PET/CT and MR images. The accuracy of the registration software was evaluated on the CT‐MRI data of one patient using known translations and rotations of MRI data. The uncertainties on the two setups were estimated using a phantom and a cohort of 30 patients. The accuracy of the positioning uncertainties was evaluated using descriptive statistics and a t ‐test to determine whether the mean shift significantly deviated from zero ( p < 0.05) for each setup. The maximum registration errors were less than 0.97 mm and 0.6° for CT‐MRI registration. On the phantom, the mean total uncertainties were less than 2.74 mm and 1.68° for C1 and 1.53 mm and 0.33° for C2. For C1, the t ‐test showed that the displacements along the z‐axis did not significantly deviate from zero ( p = 0.093). For C2, significant deviations from zero were present for anterior‐posterior and superior‐inferior displacements. The mean total uncertainties were less than 4 mm and 0.42° for C1 and less than 1.39 mm and 0.27° for C2 in the patients. Furthermore, the t ‐test showed significant deviations from zero for C1 on the anterior‐posterior and roll sides. For C2, there was a significant deviation from zero for the left‐right displacements.This study shows that transfer tables require careful evaluation before use in radiotherapy.