Dataset Information

Evaluation of the radiofrequency performance of a wide-bore 1.5 T positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging body coil for radiotherapy planning.

ABSTRACT:

Background and purpose

The restricted bore diameter of current simultaneous positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI) systems can be an impediment to achieving similar patient positioning during PET/MRI planning and radiotherapy. Our goal was to evaluate the B₁ transmit (B₁ ⁺) uniformity, B₁ ⁺ efficiency, and specific absorption rate (SAR) of a novel radiofrequency (RF) body coil design, in which RF shielded PET detectors were integrated with the specific aim of enabling a wide-bore PET/MRI system.

Materials and methods

We designed and constructed a wide-bore PET/MRI RF body coil to be integrated with a clinical MRI system. To increase its inner bore diameter, the PET detectors were positioned between the conductors and the RF shield of the RF body coil. Simulations and experiments with phantoms and human volunteers were performed to compare the B₁ ⁺ uniformity, B₁ ⁺ efficiency, and SAR between our design and the clinical body coil.

Results

In the simulations, our design achieved nearly the same B₁ ⁺ field uniformity as the clinical body coil and an almost identical SAR distribution. The uniformity findings were confirmed by the physical experiments. The B₁ ⁺ efficiency was 38% lower compared to the clinical body coil.

Conclusions

To achieve wide-bore PET/MRI, it is possible to integrate shielding for PET detectors between the body coil conductors and the RF shield without compromising MRI performance. Reduced B₁ ⁺ efficiency may be compensated by adding a second RF amplifier. This finding may facilitate the application of simultaneous whole-body PET/MRI in radiotherapy planning.

SUBMITTER: Branderhorst W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8057958 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Functional imaging modalities enable practitioners to identify functional lung regions. This analysis evaluated the feasibility of nuclear medicine imaging to avoid doses to the functional lung in radiotherapy (RT) planning for patients with lung cancer. This systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out according to PRISMA-P guidelines. A search of EMBASE and PubMed for studies published throughout the last 20 years was performed using the following search criteria: (a) 'lung cancer' or 'lung malignancy' and (b) 'radiotherapy' or 'radiation therapy' or 'RT planning' and (c) 'SPECT' or 'single positron emission computed tomography' or 'functional image.' The analyzed planning parameters were the volumes of the normal lung that have received ≥ 10 Gy and ≥ 20 Gy of radiation (V10 and V20, respectively) and the mean lung dose (MLD). We compared the planning parameters obtained from anatomical RT planning and functional RT planning using perfusion or ventilation imaging ('V10, V20 or MLD' in anatomical plan vs. 'fV10, fV20 or fMLD' in functional plan). A total of 309 patients with 344 RT plan sets from 15 publications (11 perfusion SPECT, 2 ventilation SPECT, and 1 SPECT and 1 PET with both perfusion and ventilation) were included in the meta-analysis. The standard mean differences in planning parameters in functional plans using nuclear imaging were significantly reduced compared to those of anatomical plans (P < 0.01 for all): - 0.42 (95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.78 to - 0.07) for 'V10 vs. fV10', - 0.41 (95% CI - 0.64 to - 0.17) for 'V20 vs. fV20', and - 0.24 (95% CI - 0.45 to - 0.03) for 'MLD vs. fMLD'. In subgroup analysis, the functional plan using perfusion was significantly lower than the anatomical plan in all planning parameters, but there was no significant difference for ventilation. RT planning with nuclear functional lung imaging has potential to reduce radiation-induced lung injury. Perfusion imaging seems to be more promising than ventilation imaging for all planning parameters. There were not enough studies using ventilation imaging to determine what the effect is on the lung plan parameters.

Project description:PurposeTo investigate interobserver delineation variability for gross tumor volumes of primary lung tumors and associated pathologic lymph nodes using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and to compare the results with computed tomography (CT) alone- and positron emission tomography (PET)-CT-based delineations.Methods and materialsSeven physicians delineated the tumor volumes of 10 patients for the following scenarios: (1) CT only, (2) PET-CT fusion images registered to CT ("clinical standard"), and (3) postcontrast T1-weighted MRI registered with diffusion-weighted MRI. To compute interobserver variability, the median surface was generated from all observers' contours and used as the reference surface. A physician labeled the interface types (tumor to lung, atelectasis (collapsed lung), hilum, mediastinum, or chest wall) on the median surface. Contoured volumes and bidirectional local distances between individual observers' contours and the reference contour were analyzed.ResultsComputed tomography- and MRI-based tumor volumes normalized relative to PET-CT-based volumes were 1.62 ± 0.76 (mean ± standard deviation) and 1.38 ± 0.44, respectively. Volume differences between the imaging modalities were not significant. Between observers, the mean normalized volumes per patient averaged over all patients varied significantly by a factor of 1.6 (MRI) and 2.0 (CT and PET-CT) (P=4.10 × 10-5 to 3.82 × 10-9). The tumor-atelectasis interface had a significantly higher variability than other interfaces for all modalities combined (P=.0006). The interfaces with the smallest uncertainties were tumor-lung (on CT) and tumor-mediastinum (on PET-CT and MRI).ConclusionsAlthough MRI-based contouring showed overall larger variability than PET-CT, contouring variability depended on the interface type and was not significantly different between modalities, despite the limited observer experience with MRI. Multimodality imaging and combining different imaging characteristics might be the best approach to define the tumor volume most accurately.