Abstract
Purpose In our experience treating locally advanced pancreatic cancer (PC) with magnetic resonance-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT), the true-fast imaging with steady-state free precession (TRUFI) sequences used to generate real-time 2D MRI (2D cine) impart differing intensities for relevant structures when compared to the pre-treatment high resolution 3D MRI (3D MRI). Since these variations can confound target tracking selection, we propose that an understanding of the differing contrast profiles could improve selection of tracking structures.
Methods and Materials We retrospectively reviewed both 2D cine and 3D MRI images for 20 patients with PC treated with MRgRT. At simulation, an appropriate tracking target was identified and contoured on a single 3mm sagittal slice of the 3D MRI. This sagittal slice was directly compared to the co-registered 7mm 2D cine to identify structures with notable discrepancies in signal intensity. The 3D MRI was then explored in additional planes to confirm structure identities. For quantitative verification of the clinically observed differences, the pixel intensity distributions of 2D cine and 3D MRI DICOM image datasets were statistically compared.
Results In all patients reviewed, arteries (aorta, celiac, SMA, HA) appeared mildly hyperintense on both scans. However, veins (PV, SMV) appeared hyperintense on 2D cine but isointense on 3D MRI. Biliary structures appeared mildly hyperintense on 2D cine but starkly hyperintense on 3D MRI. The pixel intensity distributions extracted from 2D cine and 3D MRI images were confirmed to differ significantly (two sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; test statistic =0.40; p <0.001).
Conclusions There are significant variations in image intensity between the immediate pre-treatment 2D cine when compared to the initial planning 3D MRI. Understanding variations of image intensity between the different MRI sequences used in MRgRT is valuable to radiation oncologists and may lead to improved target tracking and optimized treatment delivery.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The IRB of Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center waived ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Conflict of Interest: None.
Funding: None.
Research data are not available at this time.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.
