Comparison of Synthetic Computed Tomography Generation Methods, Incorporating Male and Female Anatomical Differences, for Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Only Definitive Pelvic Radiotherapy

被引:12
|
作者
O'Connor, Laura M. [1 ,2 ]
Choi, Jae H. [1 ,3 ]
Dowling, Jason A. [4 ]
Warren-Forward, Helen [2 ]
Martin, Jarad [1 ,5 ]
Greer, Peter B. [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Calvary Mater Hosp, Dept Radiat Oncol, Newcastle, NSW, Australia
[2] Univ Newcastle, Sch Hlth Sci, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
[3] Univ Newcastle, Sch Math & Phys Sci, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
[4] CSIRO, Australian E Hlth Res Ctr, Herston, Qld, Australia
[5] Univ Newcastle, Sch Med & Publ Hlth, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
来源
FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY | 2022年 / 12卷
关键词
MRI radiotherapy planning; image-guided radiotherapy; synthetic CT; computer-assisted radiotherapy planning; rectum neoplasms; cervix neoplasms; endometrium neoplasms; anal canal neoplasms; BEAM RADIATION-THERAPY; CT GENERATION; ELECTRON-DENSITY; MRI; FEASIBILITY;
D O I
10.3389/fonc.2022.822687
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
PurposeThere are several means of synthetic computed tomography (sCT) generation for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-only planning; however, much of the research omits large pelvic treatment regions and female anatomical specific methods. This research aimed to apply four of the most popular methods of sCT creation to facilitate MRI-only radiotherapy treatment planning for male and female anorectal and gynecological neoplasms. sCT methods were validated against conventional computed tomography (CT), with regard to Hounsfield unit (HU) estimation and plan dosimetry. Methods and MaterialsPaired MRI and CT scans of 40 patients were used for sCT generation and validation. Bulk density assignment, tissue class density assignment, hybrid atlas, and deep learning sCT generation methods were applied to all 40 patients. Dosimetric accuracy was assessed by dose difference at reference point, dose volume histogram (DVH) parameters, and 3D gamma dose comparison. HU estimation was assessed by mean error and mean absolute error in HU value between each sCT and CT. ResultsThe median percentage dose difference between the CT and sCT was <1.0% for all sCT methods. The deep learning method resulted in the lowest median percentage dose difference to CT at -0.03% (IQR 0.13, -0.31) and bulk density assignment resulted in the greatest difference at -0.73% (IQR -0.10, -1.01). The mean 3D gamma dose agreement at 3%/2 mm among all sCT methods was 99.8%. The highest agreement at 1%/1 mm was 97.3% for the deep learning method and the lowest was 93.6% for the bulk density method. Deep learning and hybrid atlas techniques gave the lowest difference to CT in mean error and mean absolute error in HU estimation. ConclusionsAll methods of sCT generation used in this study resulted in similarly high dosimetric agreement for MRI-only planning of male and female cancer pelvic regions. The choice of the sCT generation technique can be guided by department resources available and image guidance considerations, with minimal impact on dosimetric accuracy.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] A Dosimetric Comparison of Pelvic Lymph Node Volume Delineation Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Computed Tomography in Gynecological Cancers
    Mathew, T.
    Tagaro, J.
    Lapuz, C.
    Lim, A.
    Tacey, M.
    Hannah, S.
    Foroudi, F.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2020, 108 (03): : E479 - E479
  • [32] Anatomical and Three-Dimensional Study of the Female Feline Abdominal and Pelvic Vascular System Using Dissections, Computed Tomography Angiography and Magnetic Resonance Angiography
    Rios, Daniel Rojo
    Zarzosa, Gregorio Ramirez
    Laguia, Marta Soler
    Kilroy, David
    Gomariz, Francisco Martinez
    Collado, Cayetano Sanchez
    Cano, Francisco Gil
    Garcia, Maria I. Garcia
    Florenciano, Maria Dolores Ayala
    Espinosa, Alberto Arencibia
    VETERINARY SCIENCES, 2023, 10 (12)
  • [33] Synthetic Computed Tomography Generation from 0.35T Magnetic Resonance Images for Magnetic Resonance-Only Radiation Therapy Planning Using Perceptual Loss Models
    Li, Xue
    Yadav, Poonam
    McMillan, Alan B.
    PRACTICAL RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2022, 12 (01) : E40 - E48
  • [34] Synthetic computed tomography for low-field magnetic resonance-only radiotherapy in head-and-neck cancer using residual vision transformers
    Saint-Esteven, Agustina La Greca
    Dal Bello, Ricardo
    Lapaeva, Mariia
    Fankhauser, Lisa
    Pouymayou, Bertrand
    Konukoglu, Ender
    Andratschke, Nicolaus
    Balermpas, Panagiotis
    Guckenberger, Matthias
    Tanadini-Lang, Stephanie
    PHYSICS & IMAGING IN RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2023, 27
  • [35] Deep learning approaches using 2D and 3D convolutional neural networks for generating male pelvic synthetic computed tomography from magnetic resonance imaging
    Fu, Jie
    Yang, Yingli
    Singhrao, Kamal
    Ruan, Dan
    Chu, Fang-I
    Low, Daniel A.
    Lewis, John H.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2019, 46 (09) : 3788 - 3798
  • [36] NUCLEAR MAGNETIC-RESONANCE IMAGING IN ABDOMINAL AND PELVIC DISEASE - INITIAL CLINICAL-EXPERIENCE IN COMPARISON WITH COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY AND ULTRASONOGRAPHY
    RODL, W
    LUTZ, H
    OPPELT, A
    HEPATO-GASTROENTEROLOGY, 1983, 30 (02) : 37 - 41
  • [37] MAGNETIC-RESONANCE-IMAGING OF FEMALE PELVIC MASSES AND LOCAL RECURRENT TUMORS AT AN ULTRA LOW (0.02-T) MAGNETIC-FIELD - CORRELATION WITH COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY
    VARPULA, M
    MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 1993, 11 (01) : 35 - 46
  • [39] Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Computed Tomography-Based Volume Delineation of Lumpectomy Cavity Without Surgical Clips in Breast-Conserving Radiotherapy
    Jin, M.
    Hou, X.
    Xia, L.
    Sun, X.
    Lian, X.
    Miao, Z.
    Zhikai, L.
    Shen, J.
    Zhen, H.
    Sun, Y.
    Hu, K.
    Zhang, F. Q.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2020, 108 (03): : E59 - E60
  • [40] Patient-specific synthetic magnetic resonance imaging generation from cone beam computed tomography for image guidance in liver stereotactic body radiation therapy
    Zhang, Zeyu
    Jiang, Zhuoran
    Zhong, Hualiang
    Lu, Ke
    Yin, Fang-Fang
    Ren, Lei
    PRECISION RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2022, 6 (02): : 110 - 118