Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLam, NFD
dc.contributor.authorRivens, I
dc.contributor.authorGiles, SL
dc.contributor.authorHarris, E
dc.contributor.authordeSouza, NM
dc.contributor.authorTer Haar, G
dc.date.accessioned2020-08-24T08:42:24Z
dc.date.issued2020-01-01
dc.identifier.citationInternational journal of hyperthermia : the official journal of European Society for Hyperthermic Oncology, North American Hyperthermia Group, 2020, 37 (1), pp. 1033 - 1045
dc.identifier.issn0265-6736
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.icr.ac.uk/handle/internal/3992
dc.identifier.eissn1464-5157
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/02656736.2020.1812736
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Patient suitability for magnetic resonance-guided high intensity focused ultrasound (MRgHIFU) ablation of pelvic tumors is initially evaluated clinically for treatment feasibility using referral images, acquired using standard supine diagnostic imaging, followed by MR screening of potential patients lying on the MRgHIFU couch in a 'best-guess' treatment position. Existing evaluation methods result in ≥40% of referred patients being screened out because of tumor non-targetability. We hypothesize that this process could be improved by development of a novel algorithm for predicting tumor coverage from referral imaging. METHODS: The algorithm was developed from volunteer images and tested with patient data. MR images were acquired for five healthy volunteers and five patients with recurrent gynaecological cancer. Subjects were MR imaged supine and in oblique-supine-decubitus MRgHIFU treatment positions. Body outline and bones were segmented for all subjects, with organs-at-risk and tumors also segmented for patients. Supine images were aligned with treatment images to simulate a treatment dataset. Target coverage (of patient tumors and volunteer intra-pelvic soft tissue), i.e. the volume reachable by the MRgHIFU focus, was quantified. Target coverage predicted from supine imaging was compared to that from treatment imaging. RESULTS: Mean (±standard deviation) absolute difference between supine-predicted and treatment-predicted coverage for 5 volunteers was 9 ± 6% (range: 2-22%) and for 4 patients, was 12 ± 7% (range: 4-21%), excluding a patient with poor acoustic coupling (coverage difference was 53%). CONCLUSION: Prediction of MRgHIFU target coverage from referral imaging appears feasible, facilitating further development of automated evaluation of patient suitability for MRgHIFU.
dc.formatPrint
dc.format.extent1033 - 1045
dc.languageeng
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherTAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
dc.titlePrediction of pelvic tumour coverage by magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound (MRgHIFU) from referral imaging.
dc.typeJournal Article
dcterms.dateAccepted2020-08-16
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1080/02656736.2020.1812736
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2020-01
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
dc.relation.isPartOfInternational journal of hyperthermia : the official journal of European Society for Hyperthermic Oncology, North American Hyperthermia Group
pubs.issue1
pubs.notesNot known
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/Imaging for Radiotherapy Adaptation
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging/Magnetic Resonance
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging/Therapeutic Ultrasound
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Students
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Students/PhD and MPhil
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Students/PhD and MPhil/16/17 Starting Cohort
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/Imaging for Radiotherapy Adaptation
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging/Magnetic Resonance
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging/Therapeutic Ultrasound
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Students
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Students/PhD and MPhil
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Students/PhD and MPhil/16/17 Starting Cohort
pubs.publication-statusPublished
pubs.volume37
pubs.embargo.termsNot known
icr.researchteamImaging for Radiotherapy Adaptation
icr.researchteamMagnetic Resonance
icr.researchteamTherapeutic Ultrasound
dc.contributor.icrauthorLam, Ngo Fung Daniel
dc.contributor.icrauthorHarris, Emma
dc.contributor.icrauthordeSouza, Nandita
dc.contributor.icrauthorTer Haar, Gail


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