Mutic, Sasa

PurposeBiomechanical properties can be used as biomarkers to diagnose tumors, monitor tumor development, and evaluate treatment efficacy. The purpose of this preliminary study is to characterize the biomechanical environment of two typical liver tumors, hemangiomas (HEMs) and hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs), and to investigate the potential of using strain metrics as biomarkers for tumor diagnosis, based on a limited clinical dataset.MethodsMagnetic resonance (MR) tagging was used to quantify the motion and deformation of the two types of liver tumors. Displacements of the tumors arising from a heartbeat were measured over one cardiac cycle. Local biomechanical conditions of the tumors were characterized by estimating two principal strains (ε1 and ε2) and an octahedral shear strain (εsoct) of the tumor and its peripheral region. Biomechanical conditions of the tumors were compared with those of the arbitrarily selected regions from healthy volunteers.ResultsWe observed that the HCCs had significantly smaller strain values compared to their peripheral tissues. However, the HEMs did not have significantly different strains from those of the peripheral tissues, and were similar to healthy liver regions. The sensitivity of using ε1, ε2, and εsoct to diagnose HCC were all 1, while the sensitivity of using ε1, ε2, and εsoct to diagnose HEM were 0.67, 0.17, and 0.67, respectively.ConclusionsLagrangian strain metrics provide insight into the biomechanical conditions of certain liver tumors in the human body and may provide another perspective for tumor characterization and diagnosis.

PurposeTo establish a mathematical model to guide prospective T2‐weighted four‐dimensional magnetic resonance imaging (4DMRI) acquisition and to propose an efficient solution to expedite prospective T2‐weighted 4DMRI acquisition.MethodsProspective T2‐weighted 4DMRI acquisition was characterized by a mathematical model with 4DMRI acquisition time as the objective function and completeness of the image set, acquisition timing, image contrast, and image artifacts as constraints. Given the irregular nature of human respiration, an efficient solution based on the greedy strategy (ESGS) was proposed. The efficiency of the ESGS method was validated using healthy human subjects. Comparisons were made with the previous 4DMRI method incorporating the prefixed‐order respiratory state splitting (PO‐RSS) technique.Results4DMRI image sets acquired using the ESGS and PO‐RSS methods had similar image quality. The average time to acquire a 4DMRI image set covering 60 slices at 10 respiratory states was reduced by 30%, from 13.1 min using the PO‐RSS method to 9.0 min using the ESGS method. It was demonstrated that high‐quality T2‐weighted 4DMRI could be obtained within a reasonable amount of time and all slices within each of the three‐dimensional volumes were indeed acquired at the same respiratory state.ConclusionsThe ESGS method substantially reduces the acquisition time for T2‐weighted 4DMRI, making it ready for clinical evaluation to obtain abdominal tumor motion for radiotherapy treatment planning.

On‐board magnetic resonance (MR) image guidance during radiation therapy offers the potential for more accurate treatment delivery. To utilize the real‐time image information, a crucial prerequisite is the ability to successfully segment and track regions of interest (ROI). The purpose of this work is to evaluate the performance of different segmentation algorithms using motion images (4 frames per second) acquired using a MR image‐guided radiotherapy (MR‐IGRT) system. Manual contours of the kidney, bladder, duodenum, and a liver tumor by an experienced radiation oncologist were used as the ground truth for performance evaluation. Besides the manual segmentation, images were automatically segmented using thresholding, fuzzy k‐means (FKM), k‐harmonic means (KHM), and reaction‐diffusion level set evolution (RD‐LSE) algorithms, as well as the tissue tracking algorithm provided by the ViewRay treatment planning and delivery system (VR‐TPDS). The performance of the five algorithms was evaluated quantitatively by comparing with the manual segmentation using the Dice coefficient and target registration error (TRE) measured as the distance between the centroid of the manual ROI and the centroid of the automatically segmented ROI. All methods were able to successfully segment the bladder and the kidney, but only FKM, KHM, and VR‐TPDS were able to segment the liver tumor and the duodenum. The performance of the thresholding, FKM, KHM, and RD‐LSE algorithms degraded as the local image contrast decreased, whereas the performance of the VP‐TPDS method was nearly independent of local image contrast due to the reference registration algorithm. For segmenting high‐contrast images (i.e., kidney), the thresholding method provided the best speed ( ) with a satisfying accuracy ( ). When the image contrast was low, the VR‐TPDS method had the best automatic contour. Results suggest an image quality determination procedure before segmentation and a combination of different methods for optimal segmentation with the on‐board MR‐IGRT system. PACS number(s): 87.57.nm, 87.57.N‐, 87.61.Tg

300 Background: The National Radiation Oncology Registry (NROR) is developing an IT infrastructure to support the efficient collection, aggregation, and analysis of data concerning cancer patients treated with radiotherapy across the United States. Methods: Detailed requirements were developed to emphasize the following distinguishing goals for the system: 1) streamline the process of data collection by minimizing manual data entry; 2) support the collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and their linkage with clinician-observed outcomes; 3) facilitate data integration within the NROR and between the NROR and other registries; 4) allow for evolution of the system in response to new learning; and 5) promote sustainability and ongoing improvement through an open standard of interoperability. Results: An innovative technical architecture has been designed to meet the goals described. The system maximizes efficiency through automated extraction and electronic transfer of data from radiation oncology information systems. PROs are collected directly from patients via a web-based portal and linked to data submitted from participating institutions. A data dictionary has been developed based on national standards and controlled vocabularies to facilitate data integration. Contemporary forms-based database technology is used in combination with traditional relational technology to permit both flexible evolution of the system and efficient data analysis. A unique “gateway” architecture and open transmission standard makes it possible for commercial products to interoperate with the registry in the future. Conclusions: The NROR prototype system will be launched later this year to collect data for a pilot registry of prostate cancer patients. Its performance and usability will be important factors in the success of the pilot. If effective, the platform will support the expansion of the NROR to benefit patients, clinicians, researchers, payors, device manufacturers, and policy-makers by capturing reliable, population-based information on radiation treatment delivery and health outcomes.