Source-linked AI summary
MRI-only brain radiotherapy: assessing the dosimetric accuracy of synthetic CT images generated using a deep learning approach
Samaneh Kazemifar, Sarah McGuire, Robert Timmerman, Zabi Wardak, Dan Nguyen, Yang Park, Steve Jiang, Amir Owrangi
TL;DR
The study asks whether synthetic CT from a single MRI pulse sequence can support brain radiotherapy planning. It uses an MI-loss GAN to generate synthetic CT images, with mean dose differences below 1% across DVH parameters.
Problem
The study addresses whether synthetic CT generated from a single MRI pulse sequence can accurately support brain radiotherapy planning.
Source: Comparison between CT and synthetic CT… · pp. 12, 16Method
The authors used a GAN with mutual information between CT and generated CT images as the generator loss to accommodate unregistered MRI/CT data.
Source: Comparison between CT and synthetic CT… · p. 12Results
Less than 1% overall was the mean percent difference between CT and synthetic-CT doses across DVH parameters, and the difference was statistically insignificant.
Source: Comparison between CT and synthetic CT… · p. 11Takeaways & Limitations
The method is a step toward using artificial intelligence to establish MRI-only radiation therapy in the clinic.
Source: Comparison between CT and synthetic CT… · p. 16The authors identify development of 3D GAN models and use of larger training datasets as future work.
Source: Comparison between CT and synthetic CT… · p. 16
Abstract
from arXiv · showhide
Purpose: This study assessed the dosimetric accuracy of synthetic CT images generated from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data for focal brain radiation therapy, using a deep learning approach. Material and Methods: We conducted a study in 77 patients with brain tumors who had undergone both MRI and computed tomography (CT) imaging as part of their simulation for external beam treatment planning. We designed a generative adversarial network (GAN) to generate synthetic CT images from MRI images. We used Mutual Information (MI) as the loss function in the generator to overcome the misalignment between MRI and CT images (unregistered data). The model was trained using all MRI slices with corresponding CT slices from each training subject s MRI/CT pair. Results: The proposed GAN method produced an average mean absolute error (MAE) of 47.2 +- 11.0 HU over 5-fold cross validation. The overall mean Dice similarity coefficient between CT and synthetic CT images was 80% +- 6% in bone for all test data. Though training a GAN model may take several hours, the model only needs to be trained once. Generating a complete synthetic CT volume for each new patient MRI volume using a trained GAN model took only one second. Conclusions: The GAN model we developed produced highly accurate synthetic CT images from conventional, single-sequence MRI images in seconds. Our proposed method has strong potential to perform well in a clinical workflow for MRI-only brain treatment planning.
Volumetric modulation arc therapy (VMAT) planning and dose calculation
The study compared dose calculations and dosimetric parameters between real CT and synthetic CT for VMAT planning. It transferred CT-based contours and plans to registered synthetic CT images and also optimized plans separately for each image type.
Volumetric modulation arc therapy (VMAT) planning and dose calculation
- CT contours and the optimized VMAT plan were transferred to registered synthetic CT images, where dose was calculated; plans were also optimized separately on CT and synthetic CT.Targets and organs at risk were contoured on CT and reviewed by a radiation oncologist before transfer.Source: Volumetric modulation arc therapy… · p. 9
- DVH parameters and total monitor units were compared between CT and synthetic CT, with 3-D gamma analysis at 2%/2mm and 1%/1mm criteria.Source: Volumetric modulation arc therapy… · p. 9
Comparison between synthetic CT and real CT
The proposed MI-loss method produced an average MAE of 47.2 ± 11.0 HU; synthetic and real CT images also showed high similarity in bone, air, and whole-head contours.
Comparison between synthetic CT and real CT
- Across all cross-validation sets, average MAE was 47.2 ± 11.0 with the proposed MI loss, versus 60.2 ± 22.0 with MAE loss; the latter was significantly larger (p < 0.05).The comparison used a paired two-tailed t-test.Source: Comparison between synthetic CT and… · p. 9
- 80% ± 6% in bone and 70% ± 7% in air were the Dice similarity coefficients between CT and synthetic CT images.Bone segmentation used a ≥ 200 HU threshold, and air segmentation used a < -200 HU threshold.Source: Comparison between synthetic CT and… · p. 9
- Across all test patients, the reported value for contours and whole-head synthetic CT contours was 96% ± 2%, with a range of 91% to 98%.Source: Comparison between synthetic CT and… · p. 10
Comparison between CT and synthetic CT doses
Across 14 patients, dose calculations on synthetic CT closely matched CT, with DVH differences below 1% and high gamma pass rates. The authors judged the resulting plans clinically equivalent to CT-based plans.
Comparison between CT and synthetic CT doses
- DVH dose differences between CT and synthetic CT were statistically insignificant and below 1% overall, and plan MUs differed by less than 1%.The comparison included the same plan on both image sets and separate plans optimized for CT and synthetic CT.Source: Comparison between CT and synthetic CT… · p. 11
- Gamma pass rates averaged 98.7% and 93.6% for 2D analysis, and 99.2% and 94.6% for 3D analysis, at 2%/2mm and 1%/1mm criteria, respectively.Rates were calculated over 14 test patients using the same plan for synthetic CT images.Source: Comparison between CT and synthetic CT… · p. 11, Table 2 · p. 13
- Target prescription coverage was within 1%, while brainstem, chiasm, and optic nerve doses were within 1% at the clinically critical 54 Gy level.The authors reported DVH parameters as equivalent to real CT for target and normal structures and judged the plans clinically equivalent.Source: Comparison between CT and synthetic CT… · p. 13