Image quality assessment of a 1.5T dedicated magnetic resonance-simulator for radiotherapy with a flexible radio frequency coil setting using the standard American College of Radiology magnetic resonance imaging phantom test

被引:20
|
作者
Wong, Oi Lei [1 ]
Yuan, Jing [1 ]
Yu, Siu Ki [1 ]
Cheung, Kin Yin [1 ]
机构
[1] Hong Kong Sanat & Hosp, Med Phys & Res Dept, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
关键词
MR-simulator (MR-sim); inter-observer agreement; ACR MRI phantom; radiotherapy (RT); ACR MRI PHANTOM; ASSURANCE; SCANNERS;
D O I
10.21037/qims.2017.02.08
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Background: A flexible RF coil setting has to be used on an MR-simulator (MR-sim) in the head and neck simulation scan for radiotherapy (RT) purpose, while the image quality might be compromised due to the sub-optimized flexible coil compared to the normal diagnostic radiological (DR) head coil. In this study, we assessed the image quality of an MR-sim by conducting the standard American College of Radiology (ACR) MRI phantom test on a 1.5T MR-sim under RT-setting and comparing it to DR-setting. Methods: A large ACR MRI phantom was carefully positioned, aligned and scanned 9 times for each under RT-and DR-setting on a 1.5T MR-sim, following the ACR scanning instruction. Images were analyzed following the ACR guidance. Measurement results under two coil settings were quantitatively compared. Inter-observer disagreements under RT-setting between two physicists were compared using Bland-Altman (BA) analysis and intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: The MR-sim with RT-setting obtained sufficiently good image quality to pass all ACR recommended criteria. No significant difference was found in phantom length accuracy, high-contrast spatial resolution, slice thickness accuracy, slice position accuracy, and percent-signal ghosting. RT-setting significantly under-performed in low-contrast object detectability, while better performed in image intensity uniformity. BA analysis showed that 95% limit of agreement and biases of phantom test measurement under RT-setting between two observers were very small. Excellent inter-observer agreement (ICC > 0.75) was achieved in all measurements except for slice thickness accuracy (ICC = 0.42, moderate agreement) under RT-setting. Conclusions: Very good and highly reproducible image quality could be achieved on a 1.5T MR-sim with a flexible coil setting as revealed by the standard ACR MRI phantom test. The flexible RT-setting compromised in image signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) compared to the normal DR-setting, and resulted in reduced low-contrast object detectability.
引用
收藏
页码:205 / 214
页数:10
相关论文
共 16 条
  • [1] Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging Technique at 1.5 T and 3 T Requirements for Quality Imaging and American College of Radiology Accreditation
    DeMartini, Wendy B.
    Rahbar, Habib
    MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2013, 21 (03) : 475 - +
  • [2] Assessment of the accuracy of stereotactic target localization using 1T and 1.5T magnetic resonance imaging - a phantom study
    Novotny, J
    Vymazal, J
    Tlachacova, D
    Schmitt, M
    Chuda, P
    Novotny, J
    Urgosik, D
    Liscak, R
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2003, 30 (06) : 1521 - 1521
  • [3] On the Assessment of Image Inhomogeneity Using T2 Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Head Phantom for Radiotherapy Treatment Planning: Preliminary Study
    Yanurita Dwihapsari
    Edo Asdiantoro
    Nurul Maulidiyah
    Applied Magnetic Resonance, 2020, 51 : 59 - 69
  • [4] On the Assessment of Image Inhomogeneity Using T2 Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Head Phantom for Radiotherapy Treatment Planning: Preliminary Study
    Dwihapsari, Yanurita
    Asdiantoro, Edo
    Maulidiyah, Nurul
    APPLIED MAGNETIC RESONANCE, 2020, 51 (01) : 59 - 69
  • [5] Does the presence of an implanted cardiac device adversely affect the image quality of clinically indicated magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5t?
    Kanae Mukai
    Heather Costa
    Robert J Russo
    Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, 17 (Suppl 1)
  • [6] In vivo myocardial infarct area at risk assessment in the rat using manganese enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MEMRI) at 1.5T
    Daire, J. L.
    Hyacinthe, J. N.
    Tatar, I.
    Montet-Abou, K.
    Ivancevic, M. K.
    Masterson, K.
    Jorge-Costa, M.
    Morel, D. R.
    Vallee, J. P.
    MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE, 2008, 59 (06) : 1422 - 1430
  • [7] Non-Invasive Assessment of Neuromuscular Disorders by 7 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Spectroscopy: Dedicated Radio-Frequency Coil Development
    Retico, Alessandra
    Stara, Riccardo
    Fantacci, Maria Evelina
    Toncelli, Alessandra
    Galante, Angelo
    Florio, Tiziana M.
    Alecci, Marcello
    Cosottini, Mirco
    Astrea, Guja
    Battini, Roberta
    Tiberi, Gianluigi
    Costagli, Mauro
    Tosetti, Michela
    2015 IEEE INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON MEDICAL MEASUREMENTS AND APPLICATIONS (MEMEA) PROCEEDINGS, 2015, : 68 - 73
  • [8] Impact Assessment of Systemic Geometric Distortion in 1.5T Magnetic Resonance Imaging Simulation through Three-dimensional Geometric Distortion Phantom on Dosimetric Accuracy for Magnetic Resonance Imaging-only Prostate Treatment Planning
    Chaknam, Korawig
    Worapruekjaru, Ladawan
    Suphaphong, Sithiphong
    Stansook, Nualjun
    Sodkokkruad, Prapa
    Asavaphatiboon, Sawwanee
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2024, 49 (03) : 356 - 362
  • [9] Investigating the use of comprehensive motion monitoring for intrafraction 3D drift assessment of hypofractionated prostate cancer patients on a 1.5T magnetic resonance imaging radiotherapy system
    Tsekas, Georgios
    Zachiu, Cornel
    Bol, Gijsbert H.
    van den Dobbelsteen, Madelon
    Meijers, Lieke T. C.
    van Lier, Astrid L. H. M. W.
    de Boer, Johannes C. J.
    Raaymakers, Bas W.
    PHYSICS & IMAGING IN RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2024, 31
  • [10] Liver Biliary Function Evaluation on a 1.5T Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scan by T1 Reduction Rate Assessment Using Variable-Flip-Angle Sequences
    Di Stasio, Marco
    Cordopatri, Cesare
    Nardi, Cosimo
    Busoni, Simone
    Noferini, Linhsia
    Colagrande, Stefano
    Calistri, Linda
    JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY, 2024, 48 (03) : 354 - 360