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

AAPM Task Group 334: A guidance document to using radiotherapy immobilization devices and accessories in an MR environment

Use of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in radiation therapy has increased substantially in recent years as more radiotherapy centers are having MR simulators installed, requesting more time on clinical diagnostic MR systems, or even treating with combination MR linear accelerator (MR-linac) systems. With this increased use, to ensure the most accurate integration of images into radiotherapy (RT), RT immobilization devices and accessories must be able to be used safely in the MR environment and produce minimal perturbations. The determination of the safety profile and considerations often falls to the medical physicist or other support staff members who at a minimum should be a Level 2 personnel as per the ACR. The purpose of this guidance document will be to help guide the user in making determinations on MR Safety labeling (i.e., MR Safe, Conditional, or Unsafe) including standard testing, and verification of image quality, when using RT immobilization devices and accessories in an MR environment.

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

INTRODUCTION

MRI is preferred for brain tumor assessment, while CT is used for radiotherapy simulation. This study evaluated immobilization equipment's impact on CT-MRI registration accuracy and MR image quality in RT setup.

METHODS

We included CT and MR images from 11 patients with high-grade glioma, all of whom were immobilized with a thermoplastic mask and headrest. T1- and T2-weighted MR images were acquired using an MR head coil in a diagnostic setup (DS) and a body matrix coil in RT setup. To assess MR image quality, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were considered in some dedicated regions of interest. We also evaluated the impact of immobilization equipment on CT-MRI rigid registration using line profile and external contour methods.

RESULTS

The CNR and SNR reduction was in the RT setup of imaging. This was more evident in T1-weighted images than in T2-weighted ones. The SNR decreased by 14.91% and 12.09%, while CNR decreased by 25.12% and 20.15% in T1- and T2-weighted images, respectively. The immobilization equipment in the RT setup decreased the mean error in rigid registration by 1.02 mm. The external contour method yielded Dice similarity coefficients (DSC) of 0.84 and 0.92 for CT-DS MRI and CT-RT MRI registration, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The image quality reduction in the RT setup was due to the imaged region's anatomy and its position relative to the applied coil. Furthermore, optimizing the pulse sequence is crucial for MR imaging in RT applications. Although the use of immobilization equipment may decrease the image quality in the RT setup, it does not affect organ delineation, and the image quality is still satisfactory for this purpose. Also, the use of immobilization equipment in the RT setup has increased registration accuracy.

Quality requirements for MRI simulation in cranial stereotactic radiotherapy: a guideline from the German Taskforce "Imaging in Stereotactic Radiotherapy"

Accurate Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) simulation is fundamental for high-precision stereotactic radiosurgery and fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy, collectively referred to as stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT), to deliver doses of high biological effectiveness to well-defined cranial targets. Multiple MRI hardware related factors as well as scanner configuration and sequence protocol parameters can affect the imaging accuracy and need to be optimized for the special purpose of radiotherapy treatment planning. MRI simulation for SRT is possible for different organizational environments including patient referral for imaging as well as dedicated MRI simulation in the radiotherapy department but require radiotherapy-optimized MRI protocols and defined quality standards to ensure geometrically accurate images that form an impeccable foundation for treatment planning. For this guideline, an interdisciplinary panel including experts from the working group for radiosurgery and stereotactic radiotherapy of the German Society for Radiation Oncology (DEGRO), the working group for physics and technology in stereotactic radiotherapy of the German Society for Medical Physics (DGMP), the German Society of Neurosurgery (DGNC), the German Society of Neuroradiology (DGNR) and the German Chapter of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (DS-ISMRM) have defined minimum MRI quality requirements as well as advanced MRI simulation options for cranial SRT.

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.

A narrative review of MRI acquisition for MR-guided-radiotherapy in prostate cancer

Magnetic resonance guided radiotherapy (MRgRT), enabled by the clinical introduction of the integrated MRI and linear accelerator (MR-LINAC), is a novel technique for prostate cancer (PCa) treatment, promising to further improve clinical outcome and reduce toxicity. The role of prostate MRI has been greatly expanded from the traditional PCa diagnosis to also PCa screening, treatment and surveillance. Diagnostic prostate MRI has been relatively familiar in the community, particularly with the development of Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS). But, on the other hand, the use of MRI in the emerging clinical practice of PCa MRgRT, which is substantially different from that in PCa diagnosis, has been so far sparsely presented in the medical literature. This review attempts to give a comprehensive overview of MRI acquisition techniques currently used in the clinical workflows of PCa MRgRT, from treatment planning to online treatment guidance, in order to promote MRI practice and research for PCa MRgRT. In particular, the major differences in the MRI acquisition of PCa MRgRT from that of diagnostic prostate MRI are demonstrated and explained. Limitations in the current MRI acquisition for PCa MRgRT are analyzed. The future developments of MRI in the PCa MRgRT are also discussed.

Performance of a Flexible 12-Channel Head Coil in Comparison to Commercial 16- And 24-Channel Rigid Head Coils

Purpose: To compare the performance of a 12-channel flexible head coil (HFC12) with commercial 16-channel (HRC16) and 24-channel (HRC24) rigid coils.

Methods: The phantom study was performed on a 1.5 T MR scanner with HFC12, HRC16, and HRC24. The SNR and noise correlation matrix of T1WI, T2WI, and diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) were measured. The SNR profiles were created according to the SNR. In addition, 1/g-factors were calculated in different acceleration directions. In the in vivo study, T1WI, T2WI, and DWI were performed in one healthy volunteer with three different coils. The SNR and noise correlation matrix were measured.

Results: In the phantom study and in vivo study, the SNR of HFC12 in the transverse, sagittal, and coronal planes was the highest, followed by HRC24, and that of HRC16 was the lowest. The SNR profiles showed that the SNR at the edge of HFC12 was the highest. The mean value of the noise correlation matrix of HFC12 was the highest. The 1/g-factor results showed that HFC12 obtained the best acceleration ability in the head–foot acceleration direction when the reduction factor was set to two. The SNR of HFC12 in most cortices was significantly higher than that of HRC16 and HRC24, except in the occipital cortex. The SNR of HRC24 in the occipital cortex was higher than that of HFC12.

Conclusion: The SNR of HFC12 in T1WI, T2WI, and DWI was better than that of the HRC24 and HFC16. The SNR of HFC12 in the cortex was significantly higher than that of the commercial rigid head coil, except in the occipital cortex.

3D T1-weighted turbo spin echo contrast-enhanced MRI at 1.5 T for frameless brain metastases radiotherapy

PURPOSE

Performance of 3D-T1W-TSE has been proven superior to 3D-MP-GRE at 3 T on brain metastases (BM) contrast-enhanced (CE) MRI. However, its performance at 1.5 T is largely unknown and sparsely reported. This study aims to assess image quality, lesion detectability and conspicuity of 1.5 T 3D-T1W-TSE on planning MRI of frameless BM radiotherapy.

METHODS

94 BM patients to be treated by frameless brain radiotherapy were scanned using 3D-T1W-TSE with immobilization on multi-vendor 1.5 T MRI-simulators. BMs were jointly diagnosed by 4 reviewers. Enhanced lesion conspicuity was quantitatively assessed by calculating contrast ratio (CR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) reduction of white matter due to the use of flexible coil was assessed. Lesion detectability and conspicuity were compared between 1.5 T planning MRI and 3 T diagnostic MRI by an oncologist and a radiologist in 10 patients.

RESULTS

497 BMs were jointly diagnosed. The CR and CNR were 75.2 ± 39.9% and 14.2 ± 8.1, respectively. SNR reduced considerably from 31.7 ± 8.3 to 21.9 ± 5.4 with the longer distance to coils. 3 T diagnostic MRI and 1.5 T planning MRI yielded exactly the same detection of 84 BMs. Qualitatively, lesion conspicuity at 1.5 T was not inferior to that at 3 T. Quantitatively, lower brain SNR and lesion CNR were found at 1.5 T, while lesion CR at 1.5 T was highly comparable to that at 3 T.

CONCLUSION

1.5 T 3D-T1W-TSE planning MRI of frameless BM radiotherapy was comprehensively assessed. Highly comparable BM detectability and conspicuity were achieved by 1.5 T planning MRI compared to 3 T diagnostic MRI. 1.5 T 3D-T1W-TSE should be valuable for frameless brain radiotherapy planning.

Image quality assessments according to the angle of tilt of a flex tilt coil supporting device: An ACR phantom study

In this study, we assessed how image quality depends on the angle of tilt of a flex tilt coil supporting device during an MRI examination. All measurements were performed with an American College of Radiology (ACR) MRI phantom using a flex tilt coil supporting device. All images were analyzed using an automatic assessment method following the ACR MRI accreditation guidance. Image quality was compared between acquisitions grouped according to the angle of tilt of the coil supporting device: group A (Flat mode), group B (10˚), and group C (18˚). All measured image qualities were within the ACR recommended criteria, regardless of the angle of tilt of the flex tilt coil supporting device. However, statistically significant differences between the three groups were found for slice thickness, position accuracy, image intensity uniformity, and SNR (P < 0.05, ANOVA). The flex tilt coil supporting device can provide sufficient image quality, passing the criteria of the ACR MRI guideline, despite differences in slice thickness, slice position accuracy, image intensity uniformity, and SNR according to the angle of tilt.

Comparison of treatment position with mask immobilization and standard diagnostic setup in intracranial MRI radiotherapy simulation

PURPOSE

This study aims to compare the quality of images resulting from magnetic resonance imaging of patients who underwent intracranial MRI simulation using two different setups (treatment position with mask immobilization and standard diagnostic setup). Due to a larger number of channels and lack of mask immobilization in the standard diagnostic setup, we would like to evaluate whether this is an appropriate technique for MRI treatment planning.

METHODS

In total, 70 patients who underwent MR imaging of the brain at 1.5T were included in the study (48 for 6‑channel flex coil, 22 for 24-channel HNU face bill coil). Contrast-enhanced 3D T1w and T2 FLAIR images were acquired. Images were subjectively compared for artifact appearance and general image quality by three radiographers. Objective comparison of contrast rate, contrast-to-noise ratio, and signal-to-noise ratio was also performed.

RESULTS

FLAIR and contrast-enhanced 3D T1w images showed various artifacts, such as susceptibility and movement artifacts. There were no statistically significant differences regarding the evaluation of movement artifacts between two coils and two different immobilization methods. There were also no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) between the 6‑channel flex coil and 24-channel HNU face bill coil regarding qualitative general image quality and objective measures.

CONCLUSION

There were no statistically significant differences between the occurrence of movement artifacts, overall image quality, and objective image quality in treatment position with mask immobilization and standard diagnostic setup. Based on this result, we can conclude that a standard diagnostic setup is also applicable in intracranial MRI treatment planning with no loss to image quality. Registration of the imaging plans was not performed in this study; therefore, it might still be necessary to perform measurements of tumor delineation matching and geometrical accuracy acceptance in our institution.

Longitudinal acquisition repeatability of MRI radiomics features: An ACR MRI phantom study on two MRI scanners using a 3D T1W TSE sequence

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to quantitatively assess the longitudinal acquisition repeatability of MRI radiomics features in a three-dimensional (3D) T1-weighted (T1W) TSE sequence via a well-controlled prospective phantom study.

METHODS

Thirty consecutive daily datasets of an ACR-MRI phantom were acquired on two 1.5T MRI simulators using a 3D T1W TSE sequence. Images were blindly segmented by two observers. Post-acquisition processing was minimized but an intensity discretization (fixed bin size of 25). One hundred and one radiomics features (shape n = 12; first order n = 16; texture n = 73) were extracted. Longitudinal repeatability of each feature was evaluated by Pearson correlation and coefficient of variance (CV_68% ). Interobserver feature value agreement was also quantified using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis. A most repeatable radiomics feature set on both scanners was determined by feature coefficient of variance (CV_68% <5%), ICC (>0.75), and the ratio of the interobserver difference to the interobserver mean δ<5%.

RESULTS

No trend of radiomics feature value changed with time. Longitudinal feature repeatability CV_68% ranged 0.01-38.60% (mean/median: 12.5%/9.9%), and 0.01-40.47%, (8.49%/7.34%) on the scanners A and B. Shape features exhibited significantly better repeatability than first-order and texture features (all P < 0.01). Significant longitudinal repeatability difference was observed in texture features (P < 0.001) between the two scanners, but not in shape and first-order features (P > 0.30). First-order and texture features had smaller interobserver-dependent variation than acquisition-dependent variation. They also showed good interobserver agreement on both scanners (A:ICC = 0.80 ± 0.23; B:ICC = 0.80 ± 0.22), independent of acquisition repeatability. The repeatable radiomics features in common on both scanners, including 12 shape features, 0 first-order features, and 3 texture features, were determined as the most repeatable MRI radiomics feature set.

CONCLUSIONS

Radiomics features exhibited heterogeneous longitudinal repeatability, while the shape features were the most repeatable, in this phantom study with a 3D T1W TSE acquisition. The most repeatable radiomics feature set derived in this study should be helpful for the selection of reliable radiomics features in the future clinical use.

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

Purpose

To share our experiences in implementing a dedicated magnetic resonance (MR) scanner for radiotherapy (RT) treatment planning using a novel coil setup for brain imaging in treatment position as well as to present developed core protocols with sequences specifically tuned for brain and prostate RT treatment planning.

Materials and methods

Our novel setup consists of two large 18-channel flexible coils and a specifically designed wooden mask holder mounted on a flat tabletop overlay, which allows patients to be measured in treatment position with mask immobilization. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of this setup was compared to the vendor-provided flexible coil RT setup and the standard setup for diagnostic radiology. The occurrence of motion artifacts was quantified. To develop magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocols, we formulated site- and disease-specific clinical objectives.

Results

Our novel setup showed mean SNR of 163 ± 28 anteriorly, 104 ± 23 centrally, and 78 ± 14 posteriorly compared to 84 ± 8 and 102 ± 22 anteriorly, 68 ± 6 and 95 ± 20 centrally, and 56 ± 7 and 119 ± 23 posteriorly for the vendor-provided and diagnostic setup, respectively. All differences were significant (p > 0.05). Image quality of our novel setup was judged suitable for contouring by expert-based assessment. Motion artifacts were found in 8/60 patients in the diagnostic setup, whereas none were found for patients in the RT setup. Site-specific core protocols were designed to minimize distortions while optimizing tissue contrast and 3D resolution according to indication-specific objectives.

Conclusion

We present a novel setup for high-quality imaging in treatment position that allows use of several immobilization systems enabling MR-only workflows, which could reduce unnecessary dose and registration inaccuracies.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00066-020-01703-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Technical Note: A custom-designed flexible MR coil array for spine radiotherapy treatment planning

PURPOSE

To assess the performance and optimize the MR image quality when using a custom-built flexible radiofrequency (RF) spine coil array fitted between the immobilization device and the patient for spine radiotherapy treatment planning.

METHODS

A 32 channel flexible custom-designed receive-only coil array has been developed for spine radiotherapy simulation for a 3 T Philips MR scanner. Coil signal-to-noise performance and interactions with standard vendor hardware were assessed. In four volunteers, immobilization molds were created with a dummy version of the array within the mold, and subjects were scanned using the custom array in the mold. Phantoms and normal volunteers were scanned with both the custom spine coil array and the vendor's FDA-approved in-table posterior coil array to compare performance.

RESULTS

The superior-inferior field of view for the custom spine array was ~30 cm encompassing at least 10 vertebrae. A noise correlation matrix showed at least 25 dB isolation between all coil elements. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) calculated on a phantom scan at the depth of the spinal cord was a factor of 3 higher with the form-fit spine array as compared to the vendor's posterior coil array. The body coil B₁ transmit map was equivalent with and without the spine array in place demonstrating that the elements are decoupled from the body coil. Volunteer imaging showed improved SNR as compared to the vendor's posterior coil array. The custom array permitted a high degree of acceleration making possible the acquisition of isotropic high-resolution 1.1 × 1.1 × 1.1 mm³ three-dimensional data set over a 30-cm section of the spine in less than 5 min.

CONCLUSION

The custom-designed form-fitting flexible spine coil array provided enhanced SNR and increased acceleration compared to the vendor's posterior array. Future studies will assess MR-based spinal cord imaging with the custom coil in comparison to CT myelogram.

Magnetic resonance imaging for brain stereotactic radiotherapy : A review of requirements and pitfalls

Due to its superior soft tissue contrast, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is essential for many radiotherapy treatment indications. This is especially true for treatment planning in intracranial tumors, where MRI has a long-standing history for target delineation in clinical practice. Despite its routine use, care has to be taken when selecting and acquiring MRI studies for the purpose of radiotherapy treatment planning. Requirements on MRI are particularly demanding for intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy, where accurate imaging has a critical role in treatment success. However, MR images acquired for routine radiological assessment are frequently unsuitable for high-precision stereotactic radiotherapy as the requirements for imaging are significantly different for radiotherapy planning and diagnostic radiology. To assure that optimal imaging is used for treatment planning, the radiation oncologist needs proper knowledge of the most important requirements concerning the use of MRI in brain stereotactic radiotherapy. In the present review, we summarize and discuss the most relevant issues when using MR images for target volume delineation in intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy.

Sensitivity analysis of different quality assurance methods for magnetic resonance imaging in radiotherapy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

There are currently no standard quality assurance (QA) methods for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in radiotherapy (RT). This work was aimed at evaluating the ability of two QA protocols to detect common events that affect quality of MR images under RT settings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The American College of Radiology (ACR) MRI QA phantom was repeatedly scanned using a flexible coil and action limits for key image quality parameters were derived. Using an exploratory survey, issues that reduce MR image quality were identified. The most commonly occurring events were introduced as provocations to produce MR images with degraded quality. From these images, detection sensitivities of the ACR MRI QA protocol and a commercial geometric accuracy phantom were determined.

RESULTS

Machine-specific action limits for key image quality parameters set at mean ± 3 σ were comparable with the ACR acceptable values. For the geometric accuracy phantom, provocations from uncorrected gradient nonlinearity effects and a piece of metal in the bore of the scanner resulted in worst distortions of 22.2 mm and 3.4 mm, respectively. The ACR phantom was sensitive to uncorrected signal variations, electric interference and a piece of metal in the bore of the scanner but could not adequately detect individual coil element failures.

CONCLUSIONS

The ACR MRI QA phantom combined with the large field-of-view commercial geometric accuracy phantom were generally sensitive in identifying some common MR image quality issues. The two protocols when combined may provide a tool to monitor the performance of MRI systems in the radiotherapy environment.

Selection and application of coils in temporomandibular joint MRI

Objective:

To compare and evaluate the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) values between a 15-channel phased array head coil and 6-channel dS Flex M surface coil in the MRI of temporomandibular joint.

Methods:

300 patients were randomly assigned to two groups: 150 patients were examined by using a 15-channel phased array head coil and the other 150 patients were scanned by using a 6-channel dS Flex M surface coil. All of the data were set in the same 6 regions of interest including the temporal lobe, condyle neck, lateral pterygoid muscle, parotid gland, the adipose area and an area of the background noise）. SNR and CNR values were measured respectively.

Results:

The numerical variation law of SNR and CNR values measured in regionsof interest of each group was similar, although different coils were used. There were statistically significant differences of SNR values in all of the oblique sagittal (OSag) proton density-weighted imaging, the part of OSag T₂ weighted image (T₂WI) except for SNR₄ and SNR₅. and oblique coronal (OCor) T₂WI sequence except for SNR₂. On the contrary, SNR₄ and SNR₅ values in the OCor T₂WI and SNR₅ values in OSag T₂WI sequences by using the surface coil were higher than those by using the head coil. There were no statistically significant intergroup differences of CNR values in OSag proton density-weighted imaging sequence except CNR₁ and in OSag T₂WI sequence except CNR₅. But, statistically significant differences of all the values in the OCor T₂WI sequence except for CNR₁ were observed.

Conclusion:

Both the phased array head coil and dS Flex M surface coil can be used for temporomandibular joint MRI.

Brain and Head-and-Neck MRI in Immobilization Mask: A Practical Solution for MR-Only Radiotherapy

In brain/head-and-neck radiotherapy (RT), thermoplastic immobilization masks guarantee reproducible patient positioning in treatment position between MRI, CT, and irradiation. Since immobilization masks do not fit in the diagnostic MR head/head-and-neck coils, flexible surface coils are used for MRI imaging in clinical practice. These coils are placed around the head/neck, in contact with the immobilization masks. However, the positioning of these flexible coils is technician dependent, thus leading to poor image reproducibility. Additionally, flexible surface coils have an inferior signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR) compared to diagnostic coils. The aim of this work was to create a new immobilization setup which fits into the diagnostic MR coils in order to enhance MR image quality and reproducibility. For this purpose, a practical immobilization setup was constructed. The performances of the standard clinical and the proposed setups were compared with four tests: SNR, image quality, motion restriction, and reproducibility of inter-fraction subject positioning. The new immobilization setup resulted in 3.4 times higher SNR values on average than the standard setup, except directly below the flexible surface coils where similar SNR was observed. Overall, the image quality was superior for brain/head-and-neck images acquired with the proposed RT setup. Comparable motion restriction in feet-head/left-right directions (maximum motion ≈1 mm) and comparable inter-fraction repositioning accuracy (mean inter-fraction movement 1 ± 0.5 mm) were observed for the standard and the new setup.

Assessment of positional reproducibility in the head and neck on a 1.5-T MR simulator for an offline MR-guided radiotherapy solution

Background

Recently, a shuttle-based offline magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) approach was proposed. This study aims to evaluate the positional reproducibility in the immobilized head and neck using a 1.5-T MR-simulator (MR-sim) on healthy volunteers.

Methods

A total of 159 scans of 14 healthy volunteers were conducted on a 1.5-T MR-sim with thermoplastic mask immobilization. MR images with isotropic 1.05³ mm³ voxel size were rigidly registered to the first scan based on fiducial, anatomical and gross positions. Mean and standard deviation of positional displacements in translation and rotation were assessed. Systematic error and random errors of positioning in the head and neck on the MR-sim were determined in the translation of, and in the rotation of roll, pitch and yaw.

Results

The systematic error (Σ) of translation in left-right (LR), anterior-posterior (AP) and superior-inferior (SI) direction was 0.57, 0.22 and 0.26 mm for fiducial displacement, 0.28, 0.10 and 0.52 mm for anatomical displacement, and 0.53, 0.22 and 0.49 mm for gross displacement, respectively. The random error (σ) in corresponding translation direction was 2.07, 0.54 and 1.32 mm for fiducial displacement, 1.34, 0.73 and 2.04 mm for anatomical displacement, and 2.24, 0.86 and 2.61 mm for gross displacement. The systematic error and random error of rotation were generally smaller than 1°.

Conclusions

Our results suggested that high gross positional reproducibility (<1 mm translational and <1° rotational systematic error) could be achieved on an MR-sim for the proposed offline MRgRT.