Improve definition of titanium tandems in MR-guided high dose rate brachytherapy for cervical cancer using proton density weighted MRI

Radiation Oncology

Perry W Grigsby¹  Julie K Schwarz¹  Hiram A Gay¹  Susan Richardson¹  Sasa Mutic¹  Jacqueline Esthappan¹  Yanle Hu¹ 

[1] Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA

关键词: Proton density weighting;    T2 weighting;    HDR Brachytherapy;    MRI;    Cervical cancer;   

Others  :  1154726
DOI  :  10.1186/1748-717X-8-16

 received in 2012-08-28, accepted in 2013-01-13,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

For cervical cancer patients treated with MR-guided high dose rate brachytherapy, the accuracy of radiation delivery depends on accurate localization of both tumors and the applicator, e.g. tandem and ovoid. Standard T2-weighted (T2W) MRI has good tumor-tissue contrast. However, it suffers from poor uterus-tandem contrast, which makes the tandem delineation very challenging. In this study, we evaluated the possibility of using proton density weighted (PDW) MRI to improve the definition of titanium tandems.

Methods

Both T2W and PDW MRI images were obtained from each cervical cancer patient. Imaging parameters were kept the same between the T2W and PDW sequences for each patient except the echo time (90 ms for T2W and 5.5 ms for PDW) and the slice thickness (0.5 cm for T2W and 0.25 cm for PDW). Uterus-tandem contrast was calculated by the equation C = (S_u-S_t)/S_u, where S_u and S_t represented the average signal in the uterus and the tandem, respectively. The diameter of the tandem was measured 1.5 cm away from the tip of the tandem. The tandem was segmented by the histogram thresholding technique.

Results

PDW MRI could significantly improve the uterus-tandem contrast compared to T2W MRI (0.42±0.24 for T2W MRI, 0.77±0.14 for PDW MRI, p=0.0002). The average difference between the measured and physical diameters of the tandem was reduced from 0.20±0.15 cm by using T2W MRI to 0.10±0.11 cm by using PDW MRI (p=0.0003). The tandem segmented from the PDW image looked more uniform and complete compared to that from the T2W image.

Conclusions

Compared to the standard T2W MRI, PDW MRI has better uterus-tandem contrast. The information provided by PDW MRI is complementary to those provided by T2W MRI. Therefore, we recommend adding PDW MRI to the simulation protocol to assist tandem delineation process for cervical cancer patients.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Hu et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Altekruse SF, Kosary CL, Krapcho M, Neyman N, Aminou R, Waldron W, Ruhl J, Howlader N, Tatalovich Z, Cho H, et al.: SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2007. MD: National Cancer Institute Bethesda; http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2007/ webcite, based on November 2009 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, 2010
• [2]Nag S, Erickson B, Thomadsen E, Orton C, Demanes JD, Petereit D, Soc AB: The American Brachytherapy Society recommendations for high-dose-rate brachytherapy for carcinoma of the cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000, 48:201-211.
• [3]Patel FD, Sharma SC, Negi PS, Ghoshal S, Gupta BD: Low-Dose Rate Vs High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy in the Treatment of Carcinoma of the Uterine Cervix - a Clinical-Trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1994, 28:335-341.
• [4]Hareyama M, Sakata K, Oouchi A, Nagakura H, Shido M, Someya M, Koito K: High-dose-rate versus low-dose-rate intracavitary therapy for carcinoma of the uterine cervix - a randomized trial. Cancer 2002, 94:117-124.
• [5]Aird EGA, Conway J: CT simulation for radiotherapy treatment planning. Br J Radiol 2002, 75:937-949.
• [6]Hellebust TP, Tanderup K, Bergstrand ES, Knutsen BH, Roislien J, Olsen DR: Reconstruction of a ring applicator using CT imaging: impact of the reconstruction method and applicator orientation. Phys Med Biol 2007, 52:4893-4904.
• [7]Rasch C, Barillot I, Remeijer P, Touw A, van Herk M, Lebesque JV: Definition of the prostate in CT and MRI: a multi-observer study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999, 43:57-66.
• [8]Li G, Citrin D, Camphausen K, Mueller B, Burman C, Mychalczak B, Miller RW, Song YL: Advances in 4D medical imaging and 4D radiation therapy. Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment 2008, 7:67-81.
• [9]Zhu J, Ma D, Lu W, Mutic S, Low D, Grigsby P: MRI-guided Radiotherapy of Cervical Carcinoma: Applications with Diffusion MRI and MR Spectroscopy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 75:S371-S371.
• [10]Berger D, Dimopoulos J, Potter R, Kirisits C: Direct reconstruction of the Vienna applicator on MR images. Radiother Oncol 2009, 93:347-351.
• [11]De Leeuw AA, Moerland MA, Nomden C, Tersteeg RH, Roesink JM, Jurgenliemk-Schulz IM: Applicator reconstruction and applicator shifts in 3D MR-based PDR brachytherapy of cervical cancer. Radiother Oncol 2009, 93:341-346.
• [12]Perez-Calatayud J, Kuipers F, Ballester F, Granero D, Richart J, Rodriguez S, Tormo A, Santos M: Exclusive MRI-based tandem and colpostats reconstruction in gynaecological brachytherapy treatment planning. Radiother Oncol 2009, 91:181-186.
• [13]Hellebust TP, Kirisits C, Berger D, Perez-Calatayud J, De Brabandere M, De Leeuw A, Dumas I, Hudej R, Lowe G, Wills R, Tanderup K: Recommendations from Gynaecological (GYN) GEC-ESTRO Working Group: considerations and pitfalls in commissioning and applicator reconstruction in 3D image-based treatment planning of cervix cancer brachytherapy. Radiother Oncol 2010, 96:153-160.
• [14]Haack S, Nielsen SK, Lindegaard JC, Gelineck J, Tanderup K: Applicator reconstruction in MRI 3D image-based dose planning of brachytherapy for cervical cancer. Radiother Oncol 2009, 91:187-193.
• [15]Wills R, Lowe G, Inchley D, Anderson C, Beenstock V, Hoskin P: Applicator reconstruction for HDR cervix treatment planning using images from 0.35 T open MR scanner. Radiother Oncol 2010, 94:346-352.
• [16]Kim Y, Muruganandham M, Modrick JM, Bayouth JE: Evaluation of artifacts and distortions of titanium applicators on 3.0-Tesla MRI: feasibility of titanium applicators in MRI-guided brachytherapy for gynecological cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011, 80:947-955.
• [17]Cho ZH, Kim DJ, Kim YK: Total inhomogeneity correction including chemical shifts and susceptibility by view angle tilting. Med Phys 1988, 15:7-11.
• [18]Kolind SH, MacKay AL, Munk PL, Xiang QS: Quantitative evaluation of metal artifact reduction techniques. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004, 20:487-495.
• [19]Butts K, Pauly JM, Gold GE: Reduction of blurring in view angle tilting MRI. Magn Reson Med 2005, 53:418-424.
• [20]Lu W, Pauly KB, Gold GE, Pauly JM, Hargreaves BA: SEMAC: Slice Encoding for Metal Artifact Correction in MRI. Magn Reson Med 2009, 62:66-76.
• [21]Nag S, Cardenes H, Chang S, Das IJ, Erickson B, Ibbott GS, Lowenstein J, Roll J, Thomadsen B, Varia M: Proposed guidelines for image-based intracavitary brachytherapy for cervical carcinoma: Report from Image-Guided Brachytherapy Working Group. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004, 60:1160-1172.
• [22]Tanderup K, Hellebust TP, Lang S, Granfeldt J, Potter R, Lindegaard JC, Kirisits C: Consequences of random and systematic reconstruction uncertainties in 3D image based brachytherapy in cervical cancer. Radiother Oncol 2008, 89:156-163.
• [23]Jackson EF, Ginsberg LE, Schomer DF, Leeds NE: A review of MRI pulse sequences and techniques in neuroimaging. Surg Neurol 1997, 47:185-199.
• [24]Sezgin M, Sankur B: Survey over image thresholding techniques and quantitative performance evaluation. Journal of Electronic Imaging 2004, 13:146-168.
• [25]Esthappan J, Garcia-Ramirez J, Hu Y, Grigsby PW: Transition from CT to MR Imaging of Titanium Applicators for 3D Image‐Based High Dose Rate Cervix Cancer Brachytherapy. Medical Physics 2011, 38:3428.