Article: Image quality comparisons of coil setups in 3T MRI for brain and head and neck radiotherapy simulations

Purpose: MRI is increasingly used for brain and head and neck radiotherapy treatment planning due to its superior soft tissue contrast. Flexible array coils can be arranged to encompass treatment immobilization devices, which do not fit in diagnostic head/neck coils. Selecting a flexible coil arrangement to replace a diagnostic coil should rely on image quality characteristics and patient comfort. We compared image quality obtained with a custom UltraFlexLarge18 (UFL18) coil setup against a commercial FlexLarge4 (FL4) coil arrangement, relative to a diagnostic Head/Neck20 (HN20) coil at 3T.

Methods: The large American College of Radiology (ACR) MRI phantom was scanned monthly in the UFL18, FL4, and HN20 coil setup over 2 years, using the ACR series and three clinical sequences. High-contrast spatial resolution (HCSR), image intensity uniformity (IIU), percent-signal ghosting (PSG), low-contrast object detectability (LCOD), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and geometric accuracy were calculated according to ACR recommendations for each series and coil arrangement. Five healthy volunteers were scanned with the clinical sequences in all three coil setups. SNR, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and artifact size were extracted from regions-of-interest along the head for each sequence and coil setup. For both experiments, ratios of image quality parameters obtained with UFL18 or FL4 over those from HN20 were formed for each coil setup, grouping the ACR and clinical sequences.

Results: Wilcoxon rank-sum tests revealed significantly higher (p < 0.001) LCOD, IIU and SNR, and lower PSG ratios with UFL18 than FL4 on the phantom for the clinical sequences, with opposite PSG and SNR trends for the ACR series. Similar statistical tests on volunteer data corroborated that SNR ratios with UFL18 (0.58 ± 0.19) were significantly higher (p < 0.001) than with FL4 (0.51 ± 0.18) relative to HN20.

Conclusions: The custom UFL18 coil setup was selected for clinical application in MR simulations due to the superior image quality demonstrated on a phantom and volunteers for clinical sequences and increased volunteer comfort.

Citing Articles

The influence of patient positioning and immobilization equipment on MR image quality and image registration in radiation therapy.

Rostami A, Robatjazi M, Javadinia S, Shomoossi N, Shahraini R J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2023; 25(2):e14162.

PMID: 37716368 PMC: 10860429. DOI: 10.1002/acm2.14162.

Image quality comparisons of coil setups in 3T MRI for brain and head and neck radiotherapy simulations.

Kaza E, Guenette J, Guthier C, Hatch S, Marques A, Singer L J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2022; 23(12):e13794.

PMID: 36285814 PMC: 9797171. DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13794.

References

1.

Metcalfe P, Liney G, Holloway L, Walker A, Barton M, Delaney G . The potential for an enhanced role for MRI in radiation-therapy treatment planning. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2013; 12(5):429-46. PMC: 4527434. DOI: 10.7785/tcrt.2012.500342. View

2.

Kaza E, Guenette J, Guthier C, Hatch S, Marques A, Singer L . Image quality comparisons of coil setups in 3T MRI for brain and head and neck radiotherapy simulations. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2022; 23(12):e13794. PMC: 9797171. DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13794. View

3.

Jonsson J, Nyholm T, Soderkvist K . The rationale for MR-only treatment planning for external radiotherapy. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2019; 18:60-65. PMC: 6630106. DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2019.03.005. View

4.

Sun J, Barnes M, Dowling J, Menk F, Stanwell P, Greer P . An open source automatic quality assurance (OSAQA) tool for the ACR MRI phantom. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. 2014; 38(1):39-46. DOI: 10.1007/s13246-014-0311-8. View

5.

Glide-Hurst C, Paulson E, McGee K, Tyagi N, Hu Y, Balter J . Task group 284 report: magnetic resonance imaging simulation in radiotherapy: considerations for clinical implementation, optimization, and quality assurance. Med Phys. 2021; 48(7):e636-e670. PMC: 8761371. DOI: 10.1002/mp.14695. View

6.

Mengling V, Bert C, Perrin R, Masitho S, Weissmann T, Mansoorian S . Implementation of a dedicated 1.5 T MR scanner for radiotherapy treatment planning featuring a novel high-channel coil setup for brain imaging in treatment position. Strahlenther Onkol. 2020; 197(3):246-256. PMC: 7892740. DOI: 10.1007/s00066-020-01703-y. View

7.

Gruber B, Froeling M, Leiner T, Klomp D . RF coils: A practical guide for nonphysicists. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018; . PMC: 6175221. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.26187. View

8.

Keil B, Wald L . Massively parallel MRI detector arrays. J Magn Reson. 2013; 229:75-89. PMC: 3740730. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmr.2013.02.001. View

9.

Wong O, Yuan J, Yu S, Cheung K . Image quality assessment of a 1.5T dedicated magnetic resonance-simulator for radiotherapy with a flexible radio frequency coil setting using the standard American College of Radiology magnetic resonance imaging phantom test. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2017; 7(2):205-214. PMC: 5418154. DOI: 10.21037/qims.2017.02.08. View

10.

Wong K, Panek R, Bhide S, Nutting C, Harrington K, Newbold K . The emerging potential of magnetic resonance imaging in personalizing radiotherapy for head and neck cancer: an oncologist's perspective. Br J Radiol. 2017; 90(1071):20160768. PMC: 5601510. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20160768. View

Image Quality Comparisons of Coil Setups in 3T MRI for Brain and Head and Neck Radiotherapy Simulations