View in EDS

A Comparison of Lumpectomy Cavity Delineations Between Use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Computed Tomography Acquired With Patient in Prone Position for Radiation Therapy Planning of Breast Cancer.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: A Comparison of Lumpectomy Cavity Delineations Between Use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Computed Tomography Acquired With Patient in Prone Position for Radiation Therapy Planning of Breast Cancer.
Authors: Huang, Wei1,2, Currey, Adam1, Chen, Xiaojian1, Li, Baosheng2, Bergom, Carmen1, Kelly, Tracy1, Wilson, J. Frank1, Li, X. Allen1 ali@mcw.edu
Source: International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. Mar2016, Vol. 94 Issue 4, p832-840. 9p.
Subjects: Lumpectomy, Magnetic resonance imaging, Breast cancer research, Computed tomography, Comparative studies, Anthropometry, Breast tumors, Lying down position, Research methodology, Medical cooperation, Computers in medicine, Patient positioning, Radiotherapy, Research, Evaluation research
Abstract: Purpose: To compare lumpectomy cavity (LC) and planning target volume (PTV) delineated with the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) and to examine the possibility of replacing CT with MRI for radiation therapy (RT) planning for breast cancer.Methods and Materials: MRI and CT data were acquired for 15 patients with early-stage breast cancer undergoing lumpectomy during RT simulation in prone positions, the same as their RT treatment positions. The LCs were delineated manually on both CT (LC-CT) and MRI acquired with 4 sequences: T1, T2, STIR, and DCE. Various PTVs were created by expanding a 15-mm margin from the corresponding LCs and from the union of the LCs for the 4 MRI sequences (PTV-MRI). Differences were measured in terms of cavity visualization score (CVS) and dice coefficient (DC).Results: The mean CVSs for T1, T2, STIR, DCE, and CT defined LCs were 3.47, 3.47, 3.87, 3.50. and 2.60, respectively, implying that the LC is mostly visible with a STIR sequence. The mean reductions of LCs from those for CT were 22%, 43%, 36%, and 17% for T1, T2, STIR, and DCE, respectively. In 14 of 15 cases, MRI (union of T1, T2, STIR, and DCE) defined LC included extra regions that would not be visible from CT. The DCs between CT and MRI (union of T1, T2, STIR, and DCE) defined volumes were 0.65 ± 0.20 for LCs and 0.85 ± 0.06 for PTVs. There was no obvious difference between the volumes of PTV-MRI and PTV-CT, and the average PTV-STIR/PTV-CT volume ratio was 0.83 ± 0.23.Conclusions: The use of MRI improves the visibility of LC in comparison with CT. The volumes of LC and PTV generated based on a MRI sequence are substantially smaller than those based on CT, and the PTV-MRI volumes, defined by the union of T1, T2, STIR, and DCE, were comparable with those of PTV-CT for most of the cases studied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics is the property of Pergamon Press - An Imprint of Elsevier Science and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Engineering Source
Description
Abstract:<bold>Purpose: </bold>To compare lumpectomy cavity (LC) and planning target volume (PTV) delineated with the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) and to examine the possibility of replacing CT with MRI for radiation therapy (RT) planning for breast cancer.<bold>Methods and Materials: </bold>MRI and CT data were acquired for 15 patients with early-stage breast cancer undergoing lumpectomy during RT simulation in prone positions, the same as their RT treatment positions. The LCs were delineated manually on both CT (LC-CT) and MRI acquired with 4 sequences: T1, T2, STIR, and DCE. Various PTVs were created by expanding a 15-mm margin from the corresponding LCs and from the union of the LCs for the 4 MRI sequences (PTV-MRI). Differences were measured in terms of cavity visualization score (CVS) and dice coefficient (DC).<bold>Results: </bold>The mean CVSs for T1, T2, STIR, DCE, and CT defined LCs were 3.47, 3.47, 3.87, 3.50. and 2.60, respectively, implying that the LC is mostly visible with a STIR sequence. The mean reductions of LCs from those for CT were 22%, 43%, 36%, and 17% for T1, T2, STIR, and DCE, respectively. In 14 of 15 cases, MRI (union of T1, T2, STIR, and DCE) defined LC included extra regions that would not be visible from CT. The DCs between CT and MRI (union of T1, T2, STIR, and DCE) defined volumes were 0.65 ± 0.20 for LCs and 0.85 ± 0.06 for PTVs. There was no obvious difference between the volumes of PTV-MRI and PTV-CT, and the average PTV-STIR/PTV-CT volume ratio was 0.83 ± 0.23.<bold>Conclusions: </bold>The use of MRI improves the visibility of LC in comparison with CT. The volumes of LC and PTV generated based on a MRI sequence are substantially smaller than those based on CT, and the PTV-MRI volumes, defined by the union of T1, T2, STIR, and DCE, were comparable with those of PTV-CT for most of the cases studied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:03603016
DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.12.014