ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2015
Initial clinical experience with a radiation oncology dedicated open 1.0T MR-simulation.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Characterizing electronic noise interference from the external laser positioning system on a radiation therapy MRI simulation scanner.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- AAPM Task Group 334: A guidance document to using radiotherapy immobilization devices and accessories in an MR environment.Medical physics · 2024Article
- Task group 284 report: magnetic resonance imaging simulation in radiotherapy: considerations for clinical implementation, optimization, and quality assurance.Medical physics · 2021Article
- Role and future of MRI in radiation oncology.The British journal of radiology · 2019Review
- MRI-only treatment planning: benefits and challenges.Physics in medicine and biology · 2018Review
- Dosimetric evaluation of magnetic resonance-generated synthetic CT for radiation treatment of rectal cancer.PloS one · 2018Article
- MRI geometric distortion: Impact on tangential whole-breast IMRT.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2016Article
- Impact of incorporating visual biofeedback in 4D MRI.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2016Article
- Technical Note: Characterization and correction of gradient nonlinearity induced distortion on a 1.0 T open bore MR-SIM.Medical physics · 2015Article
- Practical Safety Considerations for Integration of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Radiation Therapy.Practical radiation oncologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to describe our experience with 1.0T MR-SIM including characterization, quality assurance (QA) program, and features necessary for treatment planning. Staffing, safety, and patient screening procedures were developed. Utilization of an external laser positioning system (ELPS) and MR-compatible couchtop were illustrated. Spatial and volumetric analyses were conducted between CT-SIM and MR-SIM using a stereotactic QA phantom with known landmarks and volumes. Magnetic field inhomogeneity was determined using phase difference analysis. System-related, in-plane distortion was evaluated and temporal changes were assessed. 3D distortion was characterized for regions of interest (ROIs) 5-20 cm away from isocenter. American College of Radiology (ACR) recommended tests and impact of ELPS on image quality were analyzed. Combined ultrashort echotime Dixon (UTE/Dixon) sequence was evaluated. Amplitude-triggered 4D MRI was implemented using a motion phantom (2-10 phases, ~ 2 cm excursion, 3-5 s periods) and a liver cancer patient. Duty cycle, acquisition time, and excursion were evaluated between maximum intensity projection (MIP) datasets. Less than 2% difference from expected was obtained between CT-SIM and MR-SIM volumes, with a mean distance of < 0.2 mm between landmarks. Magnetic field inhomogeneity was < 2 ppm. 2D distortion was < 2 mm over 28.6-33.6 mm of isocenter. Within 5 cm radius of isocenter, mean 3D geometric distortion was 0.59 ± 0.32 mm (maximum = 1.65 mm) and increased 10-15 cm from isocenter (mean = 1.57 ± 1.06 mm, maximum = 6.26 mm). ELPS interference was within the operating frequency of the scanner and was characterized by line patterns and a reduction in signal-to-noise ratio (4.6-12.6% for TE = 50-150 ms). Image quality checks were within ACR recommendations. UTE/Dixon sequences yielded detectability between bone and air. For 4D MRI, faster breathing periods had higher duty cycles than slow (50.4% (3 s) and 39.4% (5 s), p < 0.001) and ~fourfold acquisition time increase was measured for ten-phase versus two-phase. Superior-inferior object extent was underestimated 8% (6 mm) for two-phase as compared to ten-phase MIPs, although < 2% difference was obtained for ≥ 4 phases. 4D MRI for a patient demonstrated acceptable image quality in ~ 7 min. MR-SIM was integrated into our workflow and QA procedures were developed. Clinical applicability was demonstrated for 4D MRI and UTE imaging to support MR-SIM for single modality treatment planning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.