Characterization of radiotherapy component impact on MR imaging quality for an MRgRT system

Comprehensive MR imaging QA of 0.35 T MR-Linac using a multi-purpose large FOV phantom: A single-institution experience

PURPOSE

Magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) is desired for the treatment of diseases in the abdominothoracic region, which has a broad imaging area and continuous motion. To ensure accurate treatment delivery, an effective image quality assurance (QA) program, with a phantom that covers the field of view (FOV) similar to a human torso, is required. However, routine image QA for a large FOV is not readily available at many MRgRT centers. In this work, we present the clinical experience of the large FOV MRgRT Insight phantom for periodic daily and monthly comprehensive magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-QA and its feasibility compared to the existing institutional routine MRI-QA procedures in 0.35 T MRgRT.

METHODS

Three phantoms; ViewRay cylindrical water phantom, Fluke 76-907 uniformity and linearity phantom, and Modus QA large FOV MRgRT Insight phantom, were imaged on the 0.35 T MR-Linac. The measurements were made in MRI mode with the true fast imaging with steady-state free precession (TRUFI) sequence. The ViewRay cylindrical water phantom was imaged in a single-position setup whereas the Fluke phantom and Insight phantom were imaged in three different orientations: axial, sagittal, and coronal. Additionally, the phased array coil QA was performed using the horizontal base plate of the Insight phantom by placing the desired coil around the base section which was compared to an in-house built Polyurethane foam phantom for reference.

RESULT

The Insight phantom captured image artifacts across the entire planar field of view, up to 400 mm, in a single image acquisition, which is beyond the FOV of the conventional phantoms. The geometric distortion test showed a similar distortion of 0.45 ± 0.01  and 0.41 ± 0.01 mm near the isocenter, that is, within 300 mm lengths for Fluke and Insight phantoms, respectively, but showed higher geometric distortion of 0.8 ± 0.4 mm in the peripheral region between 300 and 400 mm of the imaging slice for the Insight phantom. The Insight phantom with multiple image quality features and its accompanying software utilized the modulation transform function (MTF) to evaluate the image spatial resolution. The average MTF values were 0.35 ± 0.01, 0.35 ± 0.01, and 0.34 ± 0.03 for axial, coronal, and sagittal images, respectively. The plane alignment and spatial accuracy of the ViewRay water phantom were measured manually. The phased array coil test for both the Insight phantom and the Polyurethane foam phantoms ensured the proper functionality of each coil element.

CONCLUSION

The multifunctional large FOV Insight phantom helps in tracking MR imaging quality of the system to a larger extent compared to the routine daily and monthly QA phantoms currently used in our institute. Also, the Insight phantom is found to be more feasible for routine QA with easy setup.

System-dependent image distortion related to gantry positions of a 0.35 T MRgRT: Characterization and the corresponding correction

PURPOSE

MR-guided radiotherapy with high accuracy treatment planning requires addressing MR imaging artifacts that originate from system imperfections. This work presents the characterization and corresponding correction of gantry-related imaging distortions including geometric distortion and isocenter shift in a 0.35 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) system using distortion vector fields (DVFs).

METHODS

Two phantoms, the magnetic resonance imaging distortion in 3D (MRID^3D ) phantom and the Fluke phantom, along with a human volunteer were imaged at different gantry angles on a 0.35 T MR-Linac. The geometric distortion and isocenter shift were characterized for both phantom images. DVFs with a field of view extended beyond the physical boundary of the MRID^3D phantom were extracted from images taken at 30° gantry angle increments, with vendor-provided distortion correction turned on and off (DstOff). These extended DVFs were then applied to the relevant phantom images to correct their geometric distortions and isocenter shift at the respective gantry angles. The extended DVFs produced from the MRID^3D phantom were also applied to Fluke phantom and human MR images at their respective gantry angles. The resampled images were evaluated using structural similarity index measure (SSIM) comparison with the vendor corrected images from the MRgRT system.

RESULTS

Geometric distortion with "mean (± SD) distortion" of 3.2 ± 0.02, 2.9 ± 0.02, and 1.8 ± 0.01 mm and isocenter shift (±SD) of 0.49 ± 0.3, 0.05 ± 0.2, and 0.01 ± 0.03 mm were present in the DstOff MRID^3D phantom images in right-left (RL), anterior-posterior (AP), and superior-inferior (SI) directions, respectively. After resampling the originally acquired images by applying extended DVFs, the distortion was corrected to 0.18 ± 0.02, 0.09 ± 0.01, 0.15 ± 0.01 mm, and isocenter shift was corrected to 0.14 ± 0.05, -0.02 ± 0.04, and -0.07 ± 0.05 mm in RL, AP, and SI directions, respectively. The Fluke phantom average geometric distortion with "mean (± SD) distortion" of 2.7 ± 0.1 mm was corrected to 0.2 ± 0. 1 mm and the average isocenter shift (± SD) of 0.51 ± 0.2 mm, and 0.05 ± 0.03 was corrected to -0.08 ± 0.03 mm, and -0.05 ± 0.01 in RL and AP directions, respectively. SSIM (mean ± SD) of the original images to resampled images was increased from 0.49 ± 0.02 to 0.78 ± 0.01, 0.45 ± 0.02 to 0.75 ± 0.01, and 0.86 ± 0.25 to 0.98 ± 0.08 for MRID^3D phantom, Fluke phantom, and human MR images, respectively, for all the gantry angles compared to the vendor corrected images.

CONCLUSION

The gantry-related MR imaging distortion including geometric distortion and isocenter shift was characterized and a corresponding correction was demonstrated using extended DVFs on 0.35 T MRgRT system. The characterized gantry-related isocenter shift can be combined with geometric distortion correction to provide a technique for the correction of the full system-dependent distortion in an MRgRT system.

Emergence of MR-Linac in Radiation Oncology: Successes and Challenges of Riding on the MRgRT Bandwagon

The special issue of JCM on “Advances of MRI in Radiation Oncology” provides a unique forum for scientific literature related to MR imaging in radiation oncology. This issue covered many aspects, such as MR technology, motion management, economics, soft-tissue–air interface issues, and disease sites such as the pancreas, spine, sarcoma, prostate, head and neck, and rectum from both camps—the Unity and MRIdian systems. This paper provides additional information on the success and challenges of the two systems. A challenging aspect of this technology is low throughput and the monumental task of education and training that hinders its use for the majority of therapy centers. Additionally, the cost of this technology is too high for most institutions, and hence widespread use is still limited. This article highlights some of the difficulties and how to resolve them.

3D star shot analysis using MAGAT gel dosimeter for integrated imaging and radiation isocenter verification of MR-Linac system

Purpose

This study aims to investigate a star shot analysis using a three‐dimensional (3D) gel dosimeter for the imaging and radiation isocenter verification of a magnetic resonance linear accelerator (MR‐Linac).

Methods

A mixture of methacrylic acid, gelatin, and tetrakis (hydroxymethyl) phosphonium chloride, called MAGAT gel, was fabricated. One MAGAT gel for each Linac and MR‐Linac was irradiated under six gantry angles. A 6 MV photon beam of Linac and a 6 MV flattening filter free beam of MR‐Linac were delivered to two MAGAT gels and EBT3 films. MR images were acquired by MR‐Linac with a clinical sequence (i.e., TrueFISP). The 3D star shot analysis for seven consecutive slices of the MR images with TrueFISP was performed. The 2D star shot analysis for the central plane of the gel was compared to the results from the EBT3 films. The radius of isocircle (IC_r) and the distance between the center of the circle and the center marked on the image (IC_d) were evaluated.

Results

For MR‐Linac with MAGAT gel measurements, IC_d at the central plane was 0.46 mm for TrueFISP. Compared to EBT3 film measurements, the differences in IC_d and IC_r for both Linac and MR‐Linac were within 0.11 and 0.13 mm, respectively. For the 3D analysis, seven consecutive slices of TrueFISP images were analyzed and the maximum radii of isocircles (IC_{r_max}) were 0.18 mm for Linac and 0.73 mm for MR‐Linac. The tilting angles of radiation axis were 0.31° for Linac and 0.10° for MR‐Linac.

Conclusion

The accuracy of 3D star shot analysis using MAGAT gel was comparable to that of EBT3 film, having a capability for integrated analysis for imaging isocenter and radiation isocenter. 3D star shot analysis using MAGAT gel can provide 3D information of radiation isocenter, suggesting a quantitative extent of gantry‐tilting.

First clinical experience of correcting phantom-based image distortion related to gantry position on a 0.35T MR-Linac

MR‐guided radiotherapy requires strong imaging spatial integrity to deliver high quality plans and provide accurate dose calculation. The MRI system, however, can be compromised by the integrated linear accelerator (Linac), resulting in inaccurate imaging isocenter position and geometric distortion. Dependence on gantry position further complicates the correction of distortions. This work presents a new clinical application of a commercial phantom and software system that quantifies isocenter alignment and geometric distortion, as well as providing a deformation vector field (DVF). A large distortion phantom and a smaller grid phantom were imaged at multiple gantry angles from 0 to 330° on a 0.35 T integrated MR‐Linac. The software package was used to assess geometric distortion and generate DVFs to correct distortions within the phantom volume. The DVFs were applied to the grid phantom with resampling software then evaluated using structural similarity index measure (SSIM). Scans were also performed with a ferromagnetic clip near the phantom to investigate the correction of more severe artifacts. The mean magnitude isocenter shift was 0.67 mm, ranging from 0.25 to 1.04 mm across all angles. The DVF had a mean component value of 0.27 ± 0.02, 0.24 ± 0.01, and 0.19 ± 0.01 mm in the right‐left (RL), anterior‐posterior (AP), and superior‐inferior (SI) directions. The ferromagnetic clip increased isocenter position error from 1.98 mm to 2.20 mm and increased mean DVF component values in the RL and AP directions. The resampled grid phantom had an increased SSIM for all gantry angles compared to original images, increasing from 0.26 ± 0.001 to 0.70 ± 0.004. Through this clinical assessment, we were able to correct geometric distortion and isocenter shift related to gantry position on a 0.35 T MR‐Linac using the distortion phantom and software package. This provides encouragement that it could be used for quality assurance and clinically to correct systematic distortion caused by imaging at different gantry angles.