Internal Fiducial Markers and Susceptibility Effects in MRI-simulation and Measurement of Spatial Accuracy
Overview
Affiliations
Background: It is well-known that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is preferable to computed tomography (CT) in radiotherapy target delineation. To benefit from this, there are two options available: transferring the MRI delineated target volume to the planning CT or performing the treatment planning directly on the MRI study. A precondition for excluding the CT study is the possibility to define internal structures visible on both the planning MRI and on the images used to position the patient at treatment. In prostate cancer radiotherapy, internal gold markers are commonly used, and they are visible on CT, MRI, x-ray, and portal images. The depiction of the markers in MRI are, however, dependent on their shape and orientation relative the main magnetic field because of susceptibility effects. In the present work, these effects are investigated and quantified using both simulations and phantom measurements.
Methods And Materials: Software that simulated the magnetic field distortions around user defined geometries of variable susceptibilities was constructed. These magnetic field perturbation maps were then reconstructed to images that were evaluated. The simulation software was validated through phantom measurements of four commercially available gold markers of different shapes and one in-house gold marker.
Results: Both simulations and phantom measurements revealed small position deviations of the imaged marker positions relative the actual marker positions (<1 mm).
Conclusion: Cylindrical gold markers can be used as internal fiducial markers in MRI.
Geometrical accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for ocular proton therapy planning.
Klaassen L, Haasjes C, Hol M, Cambraia Lopes P, Spruijt K, Van De Steeg-Henzen C Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2024; 31:100598.
PMID: 38993288 PMC: 11234150. DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2024.100598.
ACPSEM position paper: the safety of magnetic resonance imaging linear accelerators.
Cook N, Shelton N, Gibson S, Barnes P, Alinaghi-Zadeh R, Jameson M Phys Eng Sci Med. 2023; 46(1):19-43.
PMID: 36847966 PMC: 10030425. DOI: 10.1007/s13246-023-01224-9.
Goudschaal K, Beeksma F, Boon M, Bijveld M, Visser J, Hinnen K Radiat Oncol. 2021; 16(1):37.
PMID: 33608008 PMC: 7893889. DOI: 10.1186/s13014-021-01768-8.
Target definition in radiotherapy of prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging only workflow.
Gunnlaugsson A, Persson E, Gustafsson C, Kjellen E, Ambolt P, Engelholm S Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2021; 9:89-91.
PMID: 33458431 PMC: 7807603. DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2019.03.004.
Woolcot T, Kousi E, Wells E, Aitken K, Taylor H, Schmidt M Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2021; 7:27-31.
PMID: 33458402 PMC: 7807725. DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2018.08.001.