umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Registration free automatic identification of gold fiducial markers in MRI target delineation images for prostate radiotherapy
Show others and affiliations
2017 (English)In: Medical physics (Lancaster), ISSN 0094-2405, Vol. 44, no 11, p. 5563-5574Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

PURPOSE: The superior soft tissue contrast of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) compared to computed tomography (CT) has urged the integration of MRI and elimination of CT in radiotherapy treatment (RT) for prostate. An intraprostatic gold fiducial marker (GFM) appears hyperintense on CT. On T2-weighted (T2w) MRI target delineation images, the GFM appear as a small signal void similar to calcifications and post biopsy fibrosis. It can therefore be difficult to identify the markers without CT. Detectability of GFMs can be improved using additional MR images, which are manually registered to target delineation images. This task requires manual labor, and is associated with interoperator differences and image registration errors. The aim of this work was to develop and evaluate an automatic method for identification of GFMs directly in the target delineation images without the need for image registration.

METHODS: T2w images, intended for target delineation, and multiecho gradient echo (MEGRE) images intended for GFM identification, were acquired for prostate cancer patients. Signal voids in the target delineation images were identified as GFM candidates. The GFM appeared as round, symmetric, signal void with increasing area for increasing echo time in the MEGRE images. These image features were exploited for automatic identification of GFMs in a MATLAB model using a patient training dataset (n = 20). The model was validated on an independent patient dataset (n = 40). The distances between the identified GFM in the target delineation images and the GFM in CT images were measured. A human observatory study was conducted to validate the use of MEGRE images.

RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the automatic method and the observatory study was 84%, 74%, 81% and 98%, 94%, 97%, respectively. The mean absolute difference in the GFM distances for the automatic method and observatory study was 1.28 ± 1.25 mm and 1.14 ± 1.06 mm, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: Multiecho gradient echo images were shown to be a feasible and reliable way to perform GFM identification. For clinical practice, visual inspection of the results from the automatic method is needed at the current stage.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Wiley-Blackwell, 2017. Vol. 44, no 11, p. 5563-5574
Keywords [en]
fiducial marker, MRI only, prostate cancer, radiation therapy, synthetic CT
National Category
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-142317DOI: 10.1002/mp.12516ISI: 000414970800004PubMedID: 28803447OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-142317DiVA, id: diva2:1160438
Available from: 2017-11-27 Created: 2017-11-27 Last updated: 2018-06-09Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records BETA

Nyholm, Tufve

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Nyholm, Tufve
By organisation
Department of Radiation Sciences
In the same journal
Medical physics (Lancaster)
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 32 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf