4.4 Article

Evaluation of anatomical landmark position differences between respiration-gated MRI and four-dimensional CT for radiation therapy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
卷 86, 期 1021, 页码 -

出版社

BRITISH INST RADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20120221

关键词

-

资金

  1. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea
  2. Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology [2011-0004444]
  3. IN-SUNG Foundation for Medical Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To measure the accuracy of position differences in anatomical landmarks in gated MRI and four-dimensional CT (4D-CT) fusion planning for radiation therapy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods: From April to December 2009, gated MR and planning 4D-CT images were obtained from 53 inoperable HCC patients accrued to this study. Gated MRI and planning 4D-CT were conducted on the same day. Manual image fusions were performed by matching the vertebral bodies. Liver volumes and three specific anatomical landmarks (portal vein conjunction, superior mesenteric artery bifurcation, and other noticeable points) were contoured from each modality. The points chosen nearest the centre of the four landmark points were compared to measure the accuracy of fusion. Results: The average distance differences (+/- standard deviation) of four validation points were 5.1mm (+/- 4.6 mm), 5.6 mm (+/- 6.2 mm), 5.4 mm (+/- 4.5 mm) and 5.1 mm (+/- 4.8 mm). Patients who had ascites or pulmonary disease showed larger discrepancies. MRI-CT fusion discrepancy was significantly correlated with positive radiation response (p<0.05). Conclusions: Approximately 5-mm anatomical landmark positional differences in all directions were found between gated MRI and 4D-CT fusion planning for HCC patients; the gap was larger in patients with ascites or pulmonary disease. Advances in knowledge: There were discrepancies of approximately 5mm in gated MRI-CT fusion planning for HCC patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据