A comparison of clinical target volumes determined by CT and MRI for the radiotherapy planning of base of skull meningiomas

Vincent S. Khoo, Elizabeth J. Adams, Frank Saran, James L. Bedford, Julian R Perks, Alan P. Warrington, Michael Brada

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

93 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the utility of image registration and to compare the localization of clinical target volumes (CTV) using CT and MRI for patients with base of skull meningiomas undergoing radiotherapy. Methods and Materials: Seven patients were imaged using CT and a T1-weighted MR volumetric sequence. Following image registration using a chamfer-matching algorithm, transaxial MR slices were reconstructed to match the planning CT slices. The accuracy of the image fusion was assessed in a preliminary study with matching accuracy better than 1.5 mm. The CTV in each patient was separately segmented by two independent observers for both CT and reconstructed MR image sets. Scalar and vector assessments were made of the difference in radial extent between the two outlines on each transaxial plane for all patients. A positive vector value corresponded to a greater extension of the tumor on MR compared to CT and vice versa. Scalar measurements compared the modulus of the differences between MR and CT, regardless of which volume was more extensive. Qualitative comparisons were also performed.Results: Interobserver difference was small with a mean (± 1SD) volume difference of 1.5 ± 1.5 cm3 for CT and 0.5 ± 1.0 cm3 for MRI. The mean CT- and MR- CTVs were 17.6 ±10.8 and 19.6 ±14.2 cm3 respectively. The mean overlap and composite volumes were 13.8 ±10.1 and 23.3 ±14.8 cm3 respectively. Average scalar differences in the left, right, anterior, and posterior directions were 6.0 ± 7.0, 3.3 ± 2.5, 4.9 ± 3.9, and 4.5 ± 5.0 mm respectively. The average vector differences were 3.3 ± 8.5, -0.3 ± 3.8, 1.1 ± 5.8, 1.5 ± 6.4 mm (for left, right, anterior, and posterior directions respectively). Qualitatively, MR appeared to discern more tumor involvement in soft tissue regions adjacent to the skull base whereas CT appeared to provide larger target volumes within bony regions. Conclusions: MRI appeared to define CTVs that were larger but not inclusive of CT-defined CTVs. Although the average vector differences were small, the differences on individual borders could be large. In some instances, the CT or MR volumes were vastly different, each providing separate information. Therefore, the use of MRI and CT is complementary. Until accurate histological confirmation of disease extent is available, it is prudent to consider composite CT/MR volumes for the radiotherapy planning of base of skull meningiomas. Copyright (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Inc.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1309-1317
Number of pages9
JournalInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
Volume46
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 15 2000
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

skull
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography
Skull Base
Meningioma
planning
radiation therapy
Radiotherapy
scalars
Individuality
Neoplasms
tumors
composite materials
borders
fusion
Direction compound

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Radiation

Cite this

A comparison of clinical target volumes determined by CT and MRI for the radiotherapy planning of base of skull meningiomas. / Khoo, Vincent S.; Adams, Elizabeth J.; Saran, Frank; Bedford, James L.; Perks, Julian R; Warrington, Alan P.; Brada, Michael.

In: International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, Vol. 46, No. 5, 15.03.2000, p. 1309-1317.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Khoo, Vincent S. ; Adams, Elizabeth J. ; Saran, Frank ; Bedford, James L. ; Perks, Julian R ; Warrington, Alan P. ; Brada, Michael. / A comparison of clinical target volumes determined by CT and MRI for the radiotherapy planning of base of skull meningiomas. In: International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2000 ; Vol. 46, No. 5. pp. 1309-1317.
@article{3f2a133087284513b73d4d0c0aa42504,
title = "A comparison of clinical target volumes determined by CT and MRI for the radiotherapy planning of base of skull meningiomas",
abstract = "Purpose: To assess the utility of image registration and to compare the localization of clinical target volumes (CTV) using CT and MRI for patients with base of skull meningiomas undergoing radiotherapy. Methods and Materials: Seven patients were imaged using CT and a T1-weighted MR volumetric sequence. Following image registration using a chamfer-matching algorithm, transaxial MR slices were reconstructed to match the planning CT slices. The accuracy of the image fusion was assessed in a preliminary study with matching accuracy better than 1.5 mm. The CTV in each patient was separately segmented by two independent observers for both CT and reconstructed MR image sets. Scalar and vector assessments were made of the difference in radial extent between the two outlines on each transaxial plane for all patients. A positive vector value corresponded to a greater extension of the tumor on MR compared to CT and vice versa. Scalar measurements compared the modulus of the differences between MR and CT, regardless of which volume was more extensive. Qualitative comparisons were also performed.Results: Interobserver difference was small with a mean (± 1SD) volume difference of 1.5 ± 1.5 cm3 for CT and 0.5 ± 1.0 cm3 for MRI. The mean CT- and MR- CTVs were 17.6 ±10.8 and 19.6 ±14.2 cm3 respectively. The mean overlap and composite volumes were 13.8 ±10.1 and 23.3 ±14.8 cm3 respectively. Average scalar differences in the left, right, anterior, and posterior directions were 6.0 ± 7.0, 3.3 ± 2.5, 4.9 ± 3.9, and 4.5 ± 5.0 mm respectively. The average vector differences were 3.3 ± 8.5, -0.3 ± 3.8, 1.1 ± 5.8, 1.5 ± 6.4 mm (for left, right, anterior, and posterior directions respectively). Qualitatively, MR appeared to discern more tumor involvement in soft tissue regions adjacent to the skull base whereas CT appeared to provide larger target volumes within bony regions. Conclusions: MRI appeared to define CTVs that were larger but not inclusive of CT-defined CTVs. Although the average vector differences were small, the differences on individual borders could be large. In some instances, the CT or MR volumes were vastly different, each providing separate information. Therefore, the use of MRI and CT is complementary. Until accurate histological confirmation of disease extent is available, it is prudent to consider composite CT/MR volumes for the radiotherapy planning of base of skull meningiomas. Copyright (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Inc.",
author = "Khoo, {Vincent S.} and Adams, {Elizabeth J.} and Frank Saran and Bedford, {James L.} and Perks, {Julian R} and Warrington, {Alan P.} and Michael Brada",
year = "2000",
month = "3",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1016/S0360-3016(99)00541-6",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "46",
pages = "1309--1317",
journal = "International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics",
issn = "0360-3016",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison of clinical target volumes determined by CT and MRI for the radiotherapy planning of base of skull meningiomas

AU - Khoo, Vincent S.

AU - Adams, Elizabeth J.

AU - Saran, Frank

AU - Bedford, James L.

AU - Perks, Julian R

AU - Warrington, Alan P.

AU - Brada, Michael

PY - 2000/3/15

Y1 - 2000/3/15

N2 - Purpose: To assess the utility of image registration and to compare the localization of clinical target volumes (CTV) using CT and MRI for patients with base of skull meningiomas undergoing radiotherapy. Methods and Materials: Seven patients were imaged using CT and a T1-weighted MR volumetric sequence. Following image registration using a chamfer-matching algorithm, transaxial MR slices were reconstructed to match the planning CT slices. The accuracy of the image fusion was assessed in a preliminary study with matching accuracy better than 1.5 mm. The CTV in each patient was separately segmented by two independent observers for both CT and reconstructed MR image sets. Scalar and vector assessments were made of the difference in radial extent between the two outlines on each transaxial plane for all patients. A positive vector value corresponded to a greater extension of the tumor on MR compared to CT and vice versa. Scalar measurements compared the modulus of the differences between MR and CT, regardless of which volume was more extensive. Qualitative comparisons were also performed.Results: Interobserver difference was small with a mean (± 1SD) volume difference of 1.5 ± 1.5 cm3 for CT and 0.5 ± 1.0 cm3 for MRI. The mean CT- and MR- CTVs were 17.6 ±10.8 and 19.6 ±14.2 cm3 respectively. The mean overlap and composite volumes were 13.8 ±10.1 and 23.3 ±14.8 cm3 respectively. Average scalar differences in the left, right, anterior, and posterior directions were 6.0 ± 7.0, 3.3 ± 2.5, 4.9 ± 3.9, and 4.5 ± 5.0 mm respectively. The average vector differences were 3.3 ± 8.5, -0.3 ± 3.8, 1.1 ± 5.8, 1.5 ± 6.4 mm (for left, right, anterior, and posterior directions respectively). Qualitatively, MR appeared to discern more tumor involvement in soft tissue regions adjacent to the skull base whereas CT appeared to provide larger target volumes within bony regions. Conclusions: MRI appeared to define CTVs that were larger but not inclusive of CT-defined CTVs. Although the average vector differences were small, the differences on individual borders could be large. In some instances, the CT or MR volumes were vastly different, each providing separate information. Therefore, the use of MRI and CT is complementary. Until accurate histological confirmation of disease extent is available, it is prudent to consider composite CT/MR volumes for the radiotherapy planning of base of skull meningiomas. Copyright (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Inc.

AB - Purpose: To assess the utility of image registration and to compare the localization of clinical target volumes (CTV) using CT and MRI for patients with base of skull meningiomas undergoing radiotherapy. Methods and Materials: Seven patients were imaged using CT and a T1-weighted MR volumetric sequence. Following image registration using a chamfer-matching algorithm, transaxial MR slices were reconstructed to match the planning CT slices. The accuracy of the image fusion was assessed in a preliminary study with matching accuracy better than 1.5 mm. The CTV in each patient was separately segmented by two independent observers for both CT and reconstructed MR image sets. Scalar and vector assessments were made of the difference in radial extent between the two outlines on each transaxial plane for all patients. A positive vector value corresponded to a greater extension of the tumor on MR compared to CT and vice versa. Scalar measurements compared the modulus of the differences between MR and CT, regardless of which volume was more extensive. Qualitative comparisons were also performed.Results: Interobserver difference was small with a mean (± 1SD) volume difference of 1.5 ± 1.5 cm3 for CT and 0.5 ± 1.0 cm3 for MRI. The mean CT- and MR- CTVs were 17.6 ±10.8 and 19.6 ±14.2 cm3 respectively. The mean overlap and composite volumes were 13.8 ±10.1 and 23.3 ±14.8 cm3 respectively. Average scalar differences in the left, right, anterior, and posterior directions were 6.0 ± 7.0, 3.3 ± 2.5, 4.9 ± 3.9, and 4.5 ± 5.0 mm respectively. The average vector differences were 3.3 ± 8.5, -0.3 ± 3.8, 1.1 ± 5.8, 1.5 ± 6.4 mm (for left, right, anterior, and posterior directions respectively). Qualitatively, MR appeared to discern more tumor involvement in soft tissue regions adjacent to the skull base whereas CT appeared to provide larger target volumes within bony regions. Conclusions: MRI appeared to define CTVs that were larger but not inclusive of CT-defined CTVs. Although the average vector differences were small, the differences on individual borders could be large. In some instances, the CT or MR volumes were vastly different, each providing separate information. Therefore, the use of MRI and CT is complementary. Until accurate histological confirmation of disease extent is available, it is prudent to consider composite CT/MR volumes for the radiotherapy planning of base of skull meningiomas. Copyright (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Inc.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034653794&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034653794&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0360-3016(99)00541-6

DO - 10.1016/S0360-3016(99)00541-6

M3 - Article

VL - 46

SP - 1309

EP - 1317

JO - International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics

JF - International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics

SN - 0360-3016

IS - 5

ER -