Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorvan Kesteren, Z
dc.contributor.authorvan der Horst, A
dc.contributor.authorGurney-Champion, OJ
dc.contributor.authorBones, I
dc.contributor.authorTekelenburg, D
dc.contributor.authorAlderliesten, T
dc.contributor.authorvan Tienhoven, G
dc.contributor.authorKlaassen, R
dc.contributor.authorvan Laarhoven, HWM
dc.contributor.authorBel, A
dc.date.accessioned2019-05-22T09:33:00Z
dc.date.issued2019-05-14
dc.identifier.citationRadiation oncology (London, England), 2019, 14 (1), pp. 80 - ?
dc.identifier.issn1748-717X
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.icr.ac.uk/handle/internal/3235
dc.identifier.eissn1748-717Xen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s13014-019-1279-zen_US
dc.description.abstractBackground For radiotherapy of abdominal cancer, four-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging (4DMRI) is desirable for tumor definition and the assessment of tumor and organ motion. However, irregular breathing gives rise to image artifacts. We developed a outlier rejection strategy resulting in a 4DMRI with reduced image artifacts in the presence of irregular breathing.Methods We obtained 2D T2-weighted single-shot turbo spin echo images, with an interleaved 1D navigator acquisition to obtain the respiratory signal during free breathing imaging in 2 patients and 12 healthy volunteers. Prior to binning, upper and lower inclusion thresholds were chosen such that 95% of the acquired images were included, while minimizing the distance between the thresholds (inclusion range (IR)). We compared our strategy (Min95) with three commonly applied strategies: phase binning with all images included (Phase), amplitude binning with all images included (MaxIE), and amplitude binning with the thresholds set as the mean end-inhale and mean end-exhale diaphragm positions (MeanIE). We compared 4DMRI quality based on: Data included (DI); percentage of images remaining after outlier rejection. Reconstruction completeness (RC); percentage of bin-slice combinations containing at least one image after binning. Intra-bin variation (IBV); interquartile range of the diaphragm position within the bin-slice combination, averaged over three central slices and ten respiratory bins. IR. Image smoothness (S); quantified by fitting a parabola to the diaphragm profile in a sagittal plane of the reconstructed 4DMRI. A two-sided Wilcoxon's signed-rank test was used to test for significance in differences between the Min95 strategy and the Phase, MaxIE, and MeanIE strategies.Results Based on the fourteen subjects, the Min95 binning strategy outperformed the other strategies with a mean RC of 95.5%, mean IBV of 1.6 mm, mean IR of 15.1 mm and a mean S of 0.90. The Phase strategy showed a poor mean IBV of 6.2 mm and the MaxIE strategy showed a poor mean RC of 85.6%, resulting in image artifacts (mean S of 0.76). The MeanIE strategy demonstrated a mean DI of 85.6%.Conclusions Our Min95 reconstruction strategy resulted in a 4DMRI with less artifacts and more precise diaphragm position reconstruction compared to the other strategies.Trial registration Volunteers: protocol W15_373#16.007; patients: protocol NL47713.018.14.
dc.formatElectronic
dc.format.extent80 - ?
dc.languageeng
dc.language.isoeng
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectEsophageal Neoplasms
dc.subjectStomach Neoplasms
dc.subjectPancreatic Neoplasms
dc.subjectMagnetic Resonance Imaging
dc.subjectPrognosis
dc.subjectRadiotherapy Dosage
dc.subjectRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
dc.subjectArtifacts
dc.subjectCase-Control Studies
dc.subjectCohort Studies
dc.subjectPhantoms, Imaging
dc.subjectRespiration
dc.subjectAlgorithms
dc.subjectImage Processing, Computer-Assisted
dc.subjectAdult
dc.subjectAged, 80 and over
dc.subjectMiddle Aged
dc.subjectFemale
dc.subjectMale
dc.subjectRadiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated
dc.subjectFour-Dimensional Computed Tomography
dc.subjectOrgans at Risk
dc.titleA novel amplitude binning strategy to handle irregular breathing during 4DMRI acquisition: improved imaging for radiotherapy purposes.
dc.typeJournal Article
dcterms.dateAccepted2019-04-22
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1186/s13014-019-1279-z
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2019-05-14en_US
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
dc.relation.isPartOfRadiation oncology (London, England)
pubs.issue1
pubs.notesNo embargo
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/Radiotherapy Physics Modelling
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/Radiotherapy Physics Modelling
pubs.publication-statusPublished
pubs.volume14en_US
pubs.embargo.termsNo embargo
icr.researchteamRadiotherapy Physics Modellingen_US
dc.contributor.icrauthorGurney-Champion, Oliveren


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/