|
 
 |
| BRIEF REPORT |
|
| Year : 2007 | Volume
: 3
| Issue : 2 | Page : 121-123 |
|
Comparison of computed tomography and magnetic resonance based target volume in brain tumors
R Prabhakar, KP Haresh, T Ganesh, RC Joshi, PK Julka, GK Rath
Department of Radiation Oncology, Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi - 110 029, India
Correspondence Address:
R Prabhakar
Department of Radiation Oncology, Insitute Rotary Cancer Hospital, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi - 110 029
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/0973-1482.34694
Purpose : This study was mainly framed to study the difference in tumor volumes as seen on computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) and their significance in planning.
Materials and Methods : Twenty-five patients with brain tumor of different diagnoses who underwent stereotactic radiotherapy were included in this study. CT and MR imaging was done for all the patients with 2.5 mm slice thickness. The CT tumor volume and MR tumor volume were measured and compared with each other. The center of mass (CM) of the tumor volume delineated on CT and MR were computed and the shift between the two CMs was determined.
Results : The mean and median volume of the tumor as measured from MR scans was 19.67 cc ± 13.73 and 16.13 cc (range: 3.25 cc - 50.37 cc). Similarly, the mean and median volume of the tumor as measured from CT scans was 15.05 cc ± 10.13 and 11.63 cc (range: 3.0 cc - 36.25 cc) respectively. The mean and median CM shift between CT and MR was 5.47 mm and 5.21 mm respectively.
Conclusion : The study demonstrates that MR is an indispensable imaging modality in radiotherapy for planning brain tumors. Keywords: Brain tumor, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging
How to cite this article:
Prabhakar R, Haresh K P, Ganesh T, Joshi R C, Julka P K, Rath G K. Comparison of computed tomography and magnetic resonance based target volume in brain tumors. J Can Res Ther 2007;3:121-3 |
How to cite this URL:
Prabhakar R, Haresh K P, Ganesh T, Joshi R C, Julka P K, Rath G K. Comparison of computed tomography and magnetic resonance based target volume in brain tumors. J Can Res Ther [serial online] 2007 [cited 2022 May 26];3:121-3. Available from: https://www.cancerjournal.net/text.asp?2007/3/2/121/34694 |
 | Table 1: Isocenter shift between target volumes marked in computed tomography and magnetic resonance based treatment planning
Click here to view |
| Table 1: Isocenter shift between target volumes marked in computed tomography and magnetic resonance based treatment planning
Click here to view |
| > Introduction | |  |
Computed tomography (CT) has made a dramatic impact in radiotherapy treatment planning. Although, CT provides geometrically precise scans, it gives less information about the soft tissues, in comparison to magnetic resonance imaging (MR). The high sensitivity of MR to variations in tissue proton density and in T 1 and T 2 relaxation times can be of value for radiotherapy imaging in central nervous system lesions. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provides excellent contrast resolution, easy multiplanar imaging and absence of artifacts. Because of the absence of bone artifacts, as seen on CT, MRI is superior for imaging the lesions at the vertex, in the posterior fossa, near the walls of the middle fossa and at the base of the skull . CT is superior to MRI for detecting meningioma but requires contrast enhancement. Both MRI and contrast-enhanced CT are effective in defining pituitary tumors, but MRI may provide more information about the precise extent of the lesions and their effect on adjacent structures. In many instances, the sensitivity of MRI exceeds that of CT. Though CT - MR fusion is the standard imaging technique for radiotherapy treatment planning for brain tumors, many centers still use CT alone. This study was mainly framed to study the difference in tumor volumes as seen on CT and MR and their significance in planning.
| > Materials and Methods | | |
Twenty-five patients with brain tumor of different diagnoses who underwent stereotactic radiotherapy were included in this study. The diagnoses include pituitary adenoma, glioma, craniopharyngioma, meningioma and brain metastasis. Immobilization was done with a relocatable frame (Gill-Thomas Cosman). Using the sequential scanning mode, 60 to 80 slices were taken for each patient. Contrast enhanced CT scan was done with CT localizer frame placed over the GTC frame for 2.5 mm slice thickness (Siemens Volume Zoom CT TM ). Similarly, contrast enhanced MR imaging was performed with MR localizer frame for 2.5 mm slice thickness (Sonata TM ). Both the image data sets were transferred to the Xknife-RT TM treatment planning system. Both the CT and MR datasets were registered using the MR and CT localizer rods attached to the patient frame. Tumor volume was marked separately on CT and MR image datasets. The CT tumor volume and MR tumor volume were measured and compared with each other. The center of mass of the tumor volume delineated on CT and MR were computed and the shift between the two CMs was determined with the distance formula. Statistical analysis was done with SPSS ver.10.0 software. The CT and MR volume comparison was done by paired t-test.
| > Results | | |
The tumor volume delineated on CT and MR datasets along with the CM is shown in [Table - 1]. The mean and median volume of the tumor as measured from the MR scans was 19.67 cc ± 13.73 and 16.13 cc (range: 3.25 cc - 50.37 cc). Similarly, the mean and median volume of the tumor as measured from CT scans was 15.05 cc ± 10.13 and 11.63 cc (range: 3.0 cc - 36.25 cc) respectively. The mean and median CM shift between CT and MR was 5.47 mm and 5.21 mm respectively. There is a linear relationship between MRI and CT volume with a good correlation coefficient of r= 0.94 and MRI shows 1.27 times more volume when compared to CT volume [Figure - 1]. [Figure - 2] shows the Bland-Altman test for CT and MR tumor volumes. It shows that MRI volume is larger than CT volume in most of the studied cases. Statistical analysis using paired sample t-test for the difference in CT and MR tumor volume was highly significant ( P <0.0001). [Figure - 3] shows the relationship between CM shift and MRI volume. It shows that the CM shift (Planning isocenter shift) decreases with increase in tumor volume.
| > Discussion | | |
CT-based planning in brain tumor without the use of MRI will lead to under-dosage to the tumor. In our study, except in the case of meningiomas in more than 44% of the patients, MRI showed more than 40% increase in the tumor volume. The statistics clearly show that MRI plays a very important role for tumor delineation for brain tumors and MRI should compulsorily be incorporated for radiotherapy treatment planning. Our results clearly show that CT underestimates the tumor volume in brain tumors and the isocenter shift also indicates a possible tumor under-dosage when CT alone is used for planning. The fact that MRI shows larger tumor volume compared to CT is well in accord with the published results. [1],[2] The relationship between isocenter shift and MRI volume reveals that isocenter shift decreases with increase in tumor volume. It shows that there may be geometric miss in small tumors especially if CT alone is used for treatment planning. It is also evident from these figures that small tumor may get under-dosed if CT alone is used for planning.
It was reported about a decade ago that on using MRI for radiation treatment planning in brain tumors, there was a mean reduction of 30% in field size from the purely CT defined one. [3] However, two other groups have reported an increased MRI defined target volume with a greater volume seen on MRI alone as opposed to CT only. [1],[4] It can therefore be concluded that there is an increased sensitivity of MRI in defining target volumes. This will in turn lead to better dose delivery to the tumor as well as more sparing of normal tissues. [5] Although CT scanning provides geometrically precise scans, it gives less detailed tumor and normal tissue anatomic definition, in comparison to MRI. [6]
| > Conclusion | | |
The study demonstrates that MR is an indispensable imaging modality in radiotherapy for planning brain tumors.
| > References | | |
| 1. | Ten Haken RK, Thornton AF Jr, Sandler HM, LaVigne ML, Quint DJ, Fraass BA, et al. A quantitative assessment of the addition of MRI to CT-based, 3-D treatment planning of brain tumors. Radiother Oncol 1992;25:121-33. 
[PUBMED] |
| 2. | Thornton AF Jr, Sandler HM, Ten Haken RK, McShan DL, Fraass BA, La Vigne ML, et al. The clinical utility of magnetic resonance imaging in 3-dimensional treatment planning of brain neoplasms. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1992;24:767-75.
[PUBMED] |
| 3. | Websy G, Adamis MK, Edelmann RR. Artifacts in MRI: Description, causes and solutions. In : Edelmann RR, Hesselink JK, Zlatkin MB, editors. Clinical Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Saunders: Philadelphia, Pa; 1996. p. 88-144.
|
| 4. | Khoo VS, Dearnaley DP, Finnigan DJ, Padhani A, Tanner SF, Leach MO. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): Considerations and applications in radiotherapy treatment planning. Radiother Oncol 1997;42:1-15.
[PUBMED] [FULLTEXT] |
| 5. | Kessler ML, Ten Haken R, Fraas B, McShan D. Expanding the use and Effectiveness of dose volume histograms for 3D treatment planning. Med Phys 1991;18:611.
|
| 6. | Kent DL, Haynor DR, Longstreth WT, Larson EB. The clinical efficacy of magnetic resonance imaging in neuroimaging. Ann Intern Med 1994;15;120:856-71.
|
[Figure - 1], [Figure - 2], [Figure - 3]
[Table - 1]
| This article has been cited by | | 1 |
Phantom assessment of three-dimensional geometric distortion of a dedicated wide-bore MR-simulator for radiotherapy |
|
| Max W K Law, Jing Yuan, Oilei O L Wong, Abby Y Ding, Yihang Zhou, Kin Y Cheung, Siu K Yu | | Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express. 2022; 8(2): 025003 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 2 |
Development of a hybrid magnetic resonance/computed tomography-compatible phantom for magnetic resonance guided radiotherapy |
|
| Min-Joo Kim, Seu-Ran Lee, Kyu-Ho Song, Hyeon-Man Baek, Bo-Young Choe, Tae Suk Suh | | Journal of Radiation Research. 2020; 61(2): 314 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 3 |
Magnetic Nanoparticles in Cancer Therapy and Diagnosis |
|
| Ali Farzin, Seyed Alireza Etesami, Jacob Quint, Adnan Memic, Ali Tamayol | | Advanced Healthcare Materials. 2020; 9(9): 1901058 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 4 |
Dosimetric evaluation of MR-derived synthetic-CTs for MR-only proton treatment planning |
|
| David Aramburu Núñez, Sandra Fontenla, Lauren Rydquist, Gabriely Del Rosario, Zhiqiang Han, Chin-Cheng Chen, Dennis Mah, Neelam Tyagi | | Medical Dosimetry. 2020; 45(3): 264 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 5 |
Amino acid PET and MR perfusion imaging in brain tumours |
|
| Christian P. Filss, Francesco Cicone, Nadim Jon Shah, Norbert Galldiks, Karl-Josef Langen | | Clinical and Translational Imaging. 2017; 5(3): 209 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 6 |
Image quality of iterative reconstruction in cranial CT imaging: comparison of model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASiR) |
|
| S. Notohamiprodjo,Z. Deak,F. Meurer,F. Maertz,F. G. Mueck,L. L. Geyer,S. Wirth | | European Radiology. 2014; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 7 |
A voxel-based investigation for MRI-only radiotherapy of the brain using ultra short echo times |
|
| Jens M Edmund,Hans M Kjer,Koen Van Leemput,Rasmus H Hansen,Jon AL Andersen,Daniel Andreasen | | Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2014; 59(23): 7501 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 8 |
Fully automated deformable registration of breast DCE-MRI and PET/CT |
|
| I D Dmitriev,C E Loo,W V Vogel,K E Pengel,K G A Gilhuijs | | Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2013; 58(4): 1221 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 9 |
MRI-based simulation of treatment plans for ion radiotherapy in the brain region |
|
| Christopher M. Rank,Nora Hünemohr,Armin M. Nagel,Matthias C. Röthke,Oliver Jäkel,Steffen Greilich | | Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2013; 109(3): 414 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 10 |
Fully automated deformable registration of breast DCE-MRI and PET/CT |
|
| Dmitriev, I.D. and Loo, C.E. and Vogel, W.V. and Pengel, K.E. and Gilhuijs, K.G.A. | | Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2013; 58(4): 1221-1233 | | [Pubmed] | | | 11 |
The influence of MRI scan position on patients with oropharyngeal cancer undergoing radical radiotherapy |
|
| Hanvey, S. and McJury, M. and Tho, L.M. and Glegg, M. and Thomson, M. and Grose, D. and James, A. and Rizwanullah, M. and Paterson, C. and Foster, J. | | Radiation Oncology. 2013; 8(1) | | [Pubmed] | | | 12 |
The influence of MRI scan position on image registration accuracy, target delineation and calculated dose in prostatic radiotherapy |
|
| Hanvey, S. and Sadozye, A.H. and McJury, M. and Glegg, M. and Foster, J. | | British Journal of Radiology. 2012; 85(1020): e1256-e1262 | | [Pubmed] | | | 13 |
The influence of MRI scan position on image registration accuracy, target delineation and calculated dose in prostatic radiotherapy |
|
| S Hanvey,A H Sadozye,M McJury,M Glegg,J Foster | | The British Journal of Radiology. 2012; 85(1020): e1256 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 14 |
A study on the tumor volume computation between different 3D treatment planning systems in radiotherapy |
|
| Prabhakar, R. and Rath, G.K. and Haresh, K.P. and Manoharan, N. and Laviraj, M.A. and Rajendran, M. and Julka, P.K. | | Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics. 2011; 7(2): 168-173 | | [Pubmed] | | | 15 |
Treatment planning using MRI data: An analysis of the dose calculation accuracy for different treatment regions |
|
| Jonsson, J.H., Karlsson, M.G., Karlsson, M., Nyholm, T. | | Radiation Oncology. 2010; 5(1): art 62 | | [Pubmed] | | | 16 |
Clinical Evaluation of Stereotactic Target Localization Using 3-Tesla MRI for Radiosurgery Planning |
|
| MacFadden, D., Zhang, B., Brock, K.K., Hodaie, M., Laperriere, N., Schwartz, M., Tsao, M., Ménard, C. | | International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2010; 76(5): 1472-1479 | | [Pubmed] | | | 17 |
Radiographic Studies in the Critical Care Environment |
|
| Revell, M.A., Pugh, M., Smith, T.L., McInnis, L.A. | | Critical Care Nursing Clinics of North America. 2010; 22(1): 41-50 | | [Pubmed] | | | 18 |
Radiographic Studies in the Critical Care Environment |
|
| Maria A. Revell,Marcia Pugh,Tasha L. Smith,Leigh Ann McInnis | | Critical Care Nursing Clinics of North America. 2010; 22(1): 41 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 19 |
Clinical Evaluation of Stereotactic Target Localization Using 3-Tesla MRI for Radiosurgery Planning |
|
| Derek MacFadden,BeiBei Zhang,Kristy K. Brock,Mojgan Hodaie,Normand Laperriere,Michael Schwartz,May Tsao,Jeffrey Stainsby,Gina Lockwood,David Mikulis,Cynthia Ménard | | International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics. 2010; 76(5): 1472 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 20 |
PET imaging in pediatric neuroradiology: current and future applications |
|
| Sunhee Kim, Noriko Salamon, Hollie A. Jackson, Stefan Blüml, Ashok Panigrahy | | Pediatric Radiology. 2010; 40(1): 82-96 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 21 |
Systematisation of spatial uncertainties for comparison between a MR and a CT-based radiotherapy workflow for prostate treatments |
|
| Nyholm, T., Nyberg, M., Karlsson, M.G., Karlsson, M. | | Radiation Oncology. 2009; 4(1): art no 54 | | [Pubmed] | | | 22 |
Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Skull Base Meningioma |
|
| Hiroshi IGAKI, Keisuke MARUYAMA, Tomoyuki KOGA, Naoya MURAKAMI, Masao TAGO, Atsuro TERAHARA, Masahiro SHIN, Keiichi NAKAGAWA, Kuni OHTOMO | | Neurologia medico-chirurgica. 2009; 49(10): 456-460 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 23 |
Positron Emission Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Imaging: The Next Generation of Multimodality Imaging? |
|
| Pichler, B.J., Wehrl, H.F., Kolb, A., Judenhofer, M.S. | | Seminars in Nuclear M. 2008; 38(3): 199-208 | | [Pubmed] | | | 24 |
Challenges and opportunities in molecular imaging |
|
| Yang, D.J., Chanda, M., Sims-Mourtada, J., Azhdarinia, A., Oh, C.-S., Bryant, J., Kim, E.E. | | Current Medical Imaging Reviews. 2008; 4(1): 46-50 | | [Pubmed] | | | 25 |
Positron Emission Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Imaging: The Next Generation of Multimodality Imaging? |
|
| Bernd J. Pichler,Hans F. Wehrl,Armin Kolb,Martin S. Judenhofer | | Seminars in Nuclear Medicine. 2008; 38(3): 199 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | |
|
 |
|
|
|
Search Pubmed for