{"title":"Clinical validation of MR-generated synthetic CT by MRCAT for brain tumor radiotherapy.","authors":"Tyrone Tsz Yeung Yip, Zhichun Li, Tian Li","doi":"10.1002/acm2.14494","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>MRI is an emerging modality in radiotherapy (RT). Accuracy synthetic CT is the prerequisite for implementing MR-only RT planning. This study validated the commercial algorithm of MR for calculating attenuation (MRCAT) in terms of image quality and dosimetric agreement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Brain tumor cases with 18 treated using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and 15 treated using stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) were analyzed. Synthetic CTs were resampled referencing planning CT. Treatment plan calculated on planning CT was recalculated on resampled MRCAT. Image quality of selected metrics and dosimetric agreements were assessed by dose-volume-histogram and 3D gamma analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For IMRT/VMAT and SRS cases, mean error were 23.42 ± 1.05 and 28.39 ± 3.17 HU; mean absolute error were 38.03 ± 1.42 and 52.36 ± 2.63 HU; root mean squared error were 89.09 ± 6.65 and 108.38 ± 12.23 HU; peak signal-to-noise ratio were 29.11 ± 0.60 and 27.65 ± 0.59 dB; and structural similarity index measures were 0.88 ± 0.00 and 0.70 ± 0.01 respectively. No significant differences were identified for DVH metrics accounting the target coverage. Most OARs did not have significant dose deviation, except left lens with 0.70% higher in D-mean after recalculation (p < 0.001). For criteria of 3 mm/3%, 2 mm/2%, and 1 mm/1%, gamma passing rates for IMRT/VMAT were 99.92%, 99.42%, and 96.47%, while SRS were 99.86%, 99.52%, and 97.57% respectively. Correlation between passing rate and image quality metrics was established in IMRT/VMAT cases, with higher similarity yield better dosimetric agreement between planning and synthetic CT.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study has validated the MRCAT for clinical use in terms of comparable image quality and dosimetric agreement with planning CT. Further case selection and MR-compatible immobilization device would be required.</p>","PeriodicalId":14989,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","volume":" ","pages":"e14494"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.14494","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: MRI is an emerging modality in radiotherapy (RT). Accuracy synthetic CT is the prerequisite for implementing MR-only RT planning. This study validated the commercial algorithm of MR for calculating attenuation (MRCAT) in terms of image quality and dosimetric agreement.
Methods: Brain tumor cases with 18 treated using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and 15 treated using stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) were analyzed. Synthetic CTs were resampled referencing planning CT. Treatment plan calculated on planning CT was recalculated on resampled MRCAT. Image quality of selected metrics and dosimetric agreements were assessed by dose-volume-histogram and 3D gamma analysis.
Results: For IMRT/VMAT and SRS cases, mean error were 23.42 ± 1.05 and 28.39 ± 3.17 HU; mean absolute error were 38.03 ± 1.42 and 52.36 ± 2.63 HU; root mean squared error were 89.09 ± 6.65 and 108.38 ± 12.23 HU; peak signal-to-noise ratio were 29.11 ± 0.60 and 27.65 ± 0.59 dB; and structural similarity index measures were 0.88 ± 0.00 and 0.70 ± 0.01 respectively. No significant differences were identified for DVH metrics accounting the target coverage. Most OARs did not have significant dose deviation, except left lens with 0.70% higher in D-mean after recalculation (p < 0.001). For criteria of 3 mm/3%, 2 mm/2%, and 1 mm/1%, gamma passing rates for IMRT/VMAT were 99.92%, 99.42%, and 96.47%, while SRS were 99.86%, 99.52%, and 97.57% respectively. Correlation between passing rate and image quality metrics was established in IMRT/VMAT cases, with higher similarity yield better dosimetric agreement between planning and synthetic CT.
Conclusion: This study has validated the MRCAT for clinical use in terms of comparable image quality and dosimetric agreement with planning CT. Further case selection and MR-compatible immobilization device would be required.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics is an international Open Access publication dedicated to clinical medical physics. JACMP welcomes original contributions dealing with all aspects of medical physics from scientists working in the clinical medical physics around the world. JACMP accepts only online submission.
JACMP will publish:
-Original Contributions: Peer-reviewed, investigations that represent new and significant contributions to the field. Recommended word count: up to 7500.
-Review Articles: Reviews of major areas or sub-areas in the field of clinical medical physics. These articles may be of any length and are peer reviewed.
-Technical Notes: These should be no longer than 3000 words, including key references.
-Letters to the Editor: Comments on papers published in JACMP or on any other matters of interest to clinical medical physics. These should not be more than 1250 (including the literature) and their publication is only based on the decision of the editor, who occasionally asks experts on the merit of the contents.
-Book Reviews: The editorial office solicits Book Reviews.
-Announcements of Forthcoming Meetings: The Editor may provide notice of forthcoming meetings, course offerings, and other events relevant to clinical medical physics.
-Parallel Opposed Editorial: We welcome topics relevant to clinical practice and medical physics profession. The contents can be controversial debate or opposed aspects of an issue. One author argues for the position and the other against. Each side of the debate contains an opening statement up to 800 words, followed by a rebuttal up to 500 words. Readers interested in participating in this series should contact the moderator with a proposed title and a short description of the topic