Synthetic CT for the planning of MR-HIFU treatment of bone metastases in pelvic and femoral bones: a feasibility study.

OBJECTIVES: Visualization of the bone distribution is an important prerequisite for MRI-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound (MRI-HIFU) treatment planning of bone metastases. In this context, we evaluated MRI-based synthetic CT (sCT) imaging for the visualization of cortical bone. METHODS: MR and CT images of nine patients with pelvic and femoral metastases were retrospectively analyzed in this study. The metastatic lesions were osteolytic, osteoblastic or mixed. sCT were generated from pre-treatment or treatment MR images using a UNet-like neural network. sCT was qualitatively and quantitatively compared to CT in the bone (pelvis or femur) containing the metastasis and in a region of interest placed on the metastasis itself, through mean absolute difference (MAD), mean difference (MD), Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), and root mean square surface distance (RMSD). RESULTS: The dataset consisted of 3 osteolytic, 4 osteoblastic and 2 mixed metastases. For most patients, the general morphology of the bone was well represented in the sCT images and osteolytic, osteoblastic and mixed lesions could be discriminated. Despite an average timespan between MR and CT acquisitions of 61 days, in bone, the average (± standard deviation) MAD was 116 ± 26 HU, MD - 14 ± 66 HU, DSC 0.85 ± 0.05, and RMSD 2.05 ± 0.48 mm and, in the lesion, MAD was 132 ± 62 HU, MD - 31 ± 106 HU, DSC 0.75 ± 0.2, and RMSD 2.73 ± 2.28 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Synthetic CT images adequately depicted the cancellous and cortical bone distribution in the different lesion types, which shows its potential for MRI-HIFU treatment planning. KEY POINTS: • Synthetic computed tomography was able to depict bone distribution in metastatic lesions. • Synthetic computed tomography images intrinsically aligned with treatment MR images may have the potential to facilitate MR-HIFU treatment planning of bone metastases, by combining visualization of soft tissues and cancellous and cortical bone.

Harmonization of Quantitative Parenchymal Enhancement in T1 -Weighted Breast MRI.

BACKGROUND: Differences in imaging parameters influence computer-extracted parenchymal enhancement measures from breast MRI. PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of differences in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI acquisition parameter settings on quantitative parenchymal enhancement of the breast, and to evaluate harmonization of contrast-enhancement values with respect to flip angle and repetition time. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. PHANTOM/POPULATIONS: We modeled parenchymal enhancement using simulations, a phantom, and two cohorts (N = 398 and N = 302) from independent cancer centers. SEQUENCE FIELD/STRENGTH: 1.5T dynamic contrast-enhanced T1 -weighted spoiled gradient echo MRI. Vendors: Philips, Siemens, General Electric Medical Systems. ASSESSMENT: We assessed harmonization of parenchymal enhancement in simulations and phantom by varying the MR parameters that influence the amount of T1 -weighting: flip angle (8°-25°) and repetition time (4-12 msec). We calculated the median and interquartile range (IQR) of the enhancement values before and after harmonization. In vivo, we assessed overlap of quantitative parenchymal enhancement in the cohorts before and after harmonization using kernel density estimations. Cohort 1 was scanned with flip angle 20° and repetition time 8 msec; cohort 2 with flip angle 10° and repetition time 6 msec. STATISTICAL TESTS: Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank-test of bootstrapped kernel density estimations. RESULTS: Before harmonization, simulated enhancement values had a median (IQR) of 0.46 (0.34-0.49). After harmonization, the IQR was reduced: median (IQR): 0.44 (0.44-0.45). In the phantom, the IQR also decreased, median (IQR): 0.96 (0.59-1.22) before harmonization, 0.96 (0.91-1.02) after harmonization. Harmonization yielded significantly (P < 0.001) better overlap in parenchymal enhancement between the cohorts: median (IQR) was 0.46 (0.37-0.58) for cohort 1 vs. 0.37 (0.30-0.44) for cohort 2 before harmonization (57% overlap); and 0.35 (0.28-0.43) vs. .0.37 (0.30-0.44) after harmonization (85% overlap). DATA CONCLUSION: The proposed practical harmonization method enables an accurate comparison between patients scanned with differences in imaging parameters. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 4.