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.eissn1748-717X
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s13014-019-1279-z
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.publisherBMC
dc.rights.urihttps://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.startdate2019-05-14
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.volume14
pubs.embargo.termsNo embargo
icr.researchteamRadiotherapy Physics Modelling
dc.contributor.icrauthorGurney-Champion, Oliver


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following collection(s)

Show simple item record

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