Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36285814›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2022

Image quality comparisons of coil setups in 3T MRI for brain and head and neck radiotherapy simulations.

Evangelia Kaza, Jeffrey P Guenette, Christian V Guthier, Steven Hatch, Alexander Marques, Lisa Singer, Jonathan D Schoenfeld

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 34% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Evangelia KazaRadiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Jeffrey P GuenetteDivision of Neuroradiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Christian V GuthierRadiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Steven HatchRadiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Alexander MarquesRadiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Lisa SingerRadiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Jonathan D SchoenfeldRadiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USDana-Farber Cancer Institute · USHarvard University · US

Funding

Kayes Technology Grant
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMRI is increasingly used for brain and head and neck radiotherapy treatment planning due to its superior soft tissue contrast. Flexible array coils can be arranged to encompass treatment immobilization devices, which do not fit in diagnostic head/neck coils. Selecting a flexible coil arrangement to replace a diagnostic coil should rely on image quality characteristics and patient comfort. We compared image quality obtained with a custom UltraFlexLarge18 (UFL18) coil setup against a commercial FlexLarge4 (FL4) coil arrangement, relative to a diagnostic Head/Neck20 (HN20) coil at 3T.

methodsThe large American College of Radiology (ACR) MRI phantom was scanned monthly in the UFL18, FL4, and HN20 coil setup over 2 years, using the ACR series and three clinical sequences. High-contrast spatial resolution (HCSR), image intensity uniformity (IIU), percent-signal ghosting (PSG), low-contrast object detectability (LCOD), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and geometric accuracy were calculated according to ACR recommendations for each series and coil arrangement. Five healthy volunteers were scanned with the clinical sequences in all three coil setups. SNR, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and artifact size were extracted from regions-of-interest along the head for each sequence and coil setup. For both experiments, ratios of image quality parameters obtained with UFL18 or FL4 over those from HN20 were formed for each coil setup, grouping the ACR and clinical sequences.

resultsWilcoxon rank-sum tests revealed significantly higher (p < 0.001) LCOD, IIU and SNR, and lower PSG ratios with UFL18 than FL4 on the phantom for the clinical sequences, with opposite PSG and SNR trends for the ACR series. Similar statistical tests on volunteer data corroborated that SNR ratios with UFL18 (0.58 ± 0.19) were significantly higher (p < 0.001) than with FL4 (0.51 ± 0.18) relative to HN20.

conclusionsThe custom UFL18 coil setup was selected for clinical application in MR simulations due to the superior image quality demonstrated on a phantom and volunteers for clinical sequences and increased volunteer comfort.

Indexed as

HeadNeckBrainHealthy VolunteersHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingPhantoms, ImagingSignal-To-Noise Ratiobrainhead and neckMR coilsMR simulationradiotherapy treatment planning

Identifiers

PMID36285814
PMCPMC9797171
OpenAlexW4307341268

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.