Dataset Information

Protocol for magnetic resonance imaging acquisition, quality assurance, and quality check for the Accelerator program for Discovery in Brain disorders using Stem cells.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The Accelerator program for Discovery in Brain disorders using Stem cells (ADBS) is a longitudinal study on five cohorts of patients with major psychiatric disorders from genetically high-risk families, their unaffected first-degree relatives, and healthy subjects. We describe the ADBS protocols for acquisition, quality assurance (QA), and quality check (QC) for multimodal magnetic resonance brain imaging studies.

Methods

We describe the acquisition and QC protocols for structural, functional, and diffusion images. For QA, we acquire proton density and functional images on phantoms, along with repeated scans on human volunteer. We describe the analysis of phantom data and test-retest reliability of volumetric and diffusion measures.

Results

Analysis of acquired phantom data shows linearity of proton density signal with increasing proton fraction, and an overall stability of various spatial and temporal QA measures. Examination of dice coefficient and statistical analyses of coefficient of variation in test-retest data on the human volunteer showed consistency of volumetric and diffusivity measures at whole-brain, regional, and voxel-level.

Conclusion

The described acquisition and QA-QC procedures can yield consistent and reliable quantitative measures. It is expected that this longitudinal neuroimaging dataset will, upon its release, serve the scientific community well and pave the way for interesting discoveries.

SUBMITTER: Parekh P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8412227 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThe purpose of this study was to develop and test a set of illustrated instructions for effective training for mechanical quality assurance (QA) of medical linear accelerators (linac).MethodsIllustrated instructions were created for mechanical QA and underwent several steps of review, testing, and refinement. Eleven testers with no recent QA experience were then recruited from our radiotherapy department (one student, two computational scientists, and eight dosimetrists). This group was selected because they have experience of radiation therapy but no preconceived ideas about how to do QA. The following parameters were progressively decalibrated on a Varian C-series linac: Group A = gantry angle, ceiling laser position, X1 jaw position, couch longitudinal position, physical graticule position (five testers); Group B = Group A + wall laser position, couch lateral and vertical position, collimator angle (three testers); Group C = Group B + couch angle, wall laser angle, and optical distance indicator (three testers). Testers were taught how to use the linac and then used the instructions to try to identify these errors. An experienced physicist observed each session, giving support on machine operation as necessary.ResultsTesters were able to follow the instructions. They determined gantry, collimator, and couch angle errors within 0.4°, 0.3°, and 0.9° of the actual changed values, respectively. Laser positions were determined within 1 mm and jaw positions within 2 mm. Couch position errors were determined within 2 mm and 3 mm for lateral/longitudinal and vertical errors, respectively. Accessory-positioning errors were determined within 1 mm. Optical distance indicator errors were determined within 2 mm when comparing with distance sticks and 6 mm when using blocks, indicating that distance sticks should be the preferred approach for inexperienced staff.ConclusionsInexperienced users were able to follow these instructions and catch errors within the criteria suggested by AAPM TG-142 for linacs used for intensity-modulated radiation therapy. These instructions are, therefore, suitable for QA training.

Project description:Background/purposeAdequate image registration of anatomical and functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans is necessary for MR-guided head and neck cancer (HNC) adaptive radiotherapy planning. Despite the quantitative capabilities of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) MRI for treatment plan adaptation, geometric distortion remains a considerable limitation. Therefore, we systematically investigated various deformable image registration (DIR) methods to co-register DWI and T2-weighted (T2W) images.Materials/methodsWe compared three commercial (ADMIRE, Velocity, Raystation) and three open-source (Elastix with default settings [Elastix Default], Elastix with parameter set 23 [Elastix 23], Demons) post-acquisition DIR methods applied to T2W and DWI MRI images acquired during the same imaging session in twenty immobilized HNC patients. In addition, we used the non-registered images (None) as a control comparator. Ground-truth segmentations of radiotherapy structures (tumour and organs at risk) were generated by a physician expert on both image sequences. For each registration approach, structures were propagated from T2W to DWI images. These propagated structures were then compared with ground-truth DWI structures using the Dice similarity coefficient and mean surface distance.Results19 left submandibular glands, 18 right submandibular glands, 20 left parotid glands, 20 right parotid glands, 20 spinal cords, and 12 tumours were delineated. Most DIR methods took <30 s to execute per case, with the exception of Elastix 23 which took ∼458 s to execute per case. ADMIRE and Elastix 23 demonstrated improved performance over None for all metrics and structures (Bonferroni-corrected p < 0.05), while the other methods did not. Moreover, ADMIRE and Elastix 23 significantly improved performance in individual and pooled analysis compared to all other methods.ConclusionsThe ADMIRE DIR method offers improved geometric performance with reasonable execution time so should be favoured for registering T2W and DWI images acquired during the same scan session in HNC patients. These results are important to ensure the appropriate selection of registration strategies for MR-guided radiotherapy.

Project description:PurposeTo perform quality assurance of non-coplanar, volumetric-modulated arc therapy featuring continuous couch rotation (CCR-VMAT) using a C-arm linear accelerator.MethodsWe planned and delivered CCR-VMAT using the TrueBeam Developer Mode. Treatment plans were created for both a C-shaped phantom and five prostate cancer patients using seven CCR trajectories that lacked collisions; we used RayStation software (ver. 4.7) to this end. Subsequently, verification plans were generated. The mean absolute error (MAE) between the center of an MV-imaged steel ball and the radiation field was calculated using the Winston-Lutz test. The MAEs between planned and actual irradiation values were also calculated from trajectory logs. In addition, correlation coefficients (r values) among the MAEs of gantry angle, couch angle, and multi-leaf collimator (MLC) position, and mechanical parameters including gantry speed, couch speed, MLC speed, and beam output, were estimated. The dosimetric accuracies of planned and measured values were also assessed using ArcCHECK.ResultsThe MAEs ±2 standard deviations as revealed by the Winston-Lutz test for all trajectories were 0.3 ± 0.3 mm in two dimensions. The MAEs of the gantry, couch, and MLC positions calculated from all trajectory logs were within 0.04°, 0.08°, and 0.02 mm, respectively. Deviations in the couch angle (r = 0.98, p < 0.05) and MLC position (r = 0.86, p < 0.05) increased significantly with speed. The MAE of the beam output error was less than 0.01 MU. The mean gamma passing rate ± 2 SD (range) of the 3%/3 mm, 3%/1 mm, and 5%/1 mm was 98.1 ± 1.9% (95.7-99.6%), 87.2 ± 2.8% (80.2-96.7%), and 96.3 ± 2.8% (93.9-99.6%), respectively.ConclusionsCCR-VMAT delivered via the TrueBeam Developer Mode was associated with high-level geometric and mechanical accuracy, thus affording to high dosimetric accuracy. The CCR-VMAT performance was stable regardless of the trajectory chosen.