Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSchmidt, MAen_US
dc.contributor.authorPanek, Ren_US
dc.contributor.authorColgan, Ren_US
dc.contributor.authorHughes, Jen_US
dc.contributor.authorSohaib, Aen_US
dc.contributor.authorSaran, Fen_US
dc.contributor.authorMurray, Jen_US
dc.contributor.authorBernard, Jen_US
dc.contributor.authorRevell, Pen_US
dc.contributor.authorNittka, Men_US
dc.contributor.authorLeach, MOen_US
dc.contributor.authorHansen, VNen_US
dc.date.accessioned2016-10-17T13:03:56Z
dc.date.issued2016-08en_US
dc.identifier.citationRadiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, 2016, 120 (2), pp. 356 - 362en_US
dc.identifier.issn0167-8140en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.icr.ac.uk/handle/internal/171
dc.identifier.eissn1879-0887en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.radonc.2016.05.004en_US
dc.description.abstractMagnetic resonance (MR) and computed tomography (CT) images are degraded in the presence of metallic implants. We investigate whether SEMAC (Slice Encoding for Metal Artifact Correction) MR is advantageous for radiotherapy (RT) planning.Conventional and SEMAC MR protocols were compared (1.5T). A spine fixation device suspended in gelatine, two patients with spine fixation devices and six patients with bilateral hip replacements were scanned with both conventional and SEMAC protocols. In spine patients the visibility of the spinal canal and spinal cord was assessed; in prostate patients, the visibility of the prostate, pelvic structures and the pelvic girdle.The signal loss volume surrounding the spine fixation device was reduced by approximately 20% when the SEMAC protocol was employed, and registration errors were reduced. For spine patients, the spinal canal was completely visible only using the SEMAC protocol. In hip replacement patients, metal artifacts were local; the signal loss extended to the internal surface of the acetabulum in eight implants with conventional protocols, but only in four using SEMAC.SEMAC MR contributes towards correct co-registration of MR and CT images for RT planning, and is particularly relevant when the TV or OARs are close to implants.en_US
dc.formatPrint-Electronicen_US
dc.format.extent356 - 362en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.subjectSpineen_US
dc.subjectHumansen_US
dc.subjectProstatic Neoplasmsen_US
dc.subjectMetalsen_US
dc.subjectTomography, X-Ray Computeden_US
dc.subjectMagnetic Resonance Imagingen_US
dc.subjectImage Enhancementen_US
dc.subjectRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisteden_US
dc.subjectFracture Fixation, Internalen_US
dc.subjectArtifactsen_US
dc.subjectProstheses and Implantsen_US
dc.subjectMaleen_US
dc.titleSlice Encoding for Metal Artefact Correction in magnetic resonance imaging examinations for radiotherapy planning.en_US
dc.typeJournal Article
dcterms.dateAccepted2016-05-05en_US
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1016/j.radonc.2016.05.004en_US
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0en_US
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2016-08en_US
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_US
dc.relation.isPartOfRadiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncologyen_US
pubs.issue2en_US
pubs.notesNo embargoen_US
pubs.organisational-group/ICR
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging/Magnetic Resonance
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/Royal Marsden Clinical Units
pubs.publication-statusPublisheden_US
pubs.volume120en_US
pubs.embargo.termsNo embargoen_US
icr.researchteamMagnetic Resonanceen_US
dc.contributor.icrauthorLeach, Martinen_US
dc.contributor.icrauthorSaran, Franken_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record