A Comparison of Intracranial Gross Tumor Volumes Generated on MPRAGE and VIBE MR Protocols



Abstract

Objectives: To compare the gross tumor volume auto-contoured on Magnetization-Prepared Rapid Acquisition Gradient Echo (MPRAGE) and Volumetric Interpolated Brain Examination (VIBE) MR sequences used for stereotactic radiosurgery treatment planning.

Methods: MR imaging was performed for SRS/SRT protocol patients with two different T1-weighted post contrast isotropic imaging sequences: MPRAGE and VIBE. The order of the sequencing study was alternated to eliminate contrast timing being a confounding variable and to vary intra-study patient movement. The 1mm slice spacing was consistent between sequences. Matlab v2018a was used to auto-contour the areas of enhancement (lesion) on both studies. The localized mean separation method developed by Pang et al. (1) was used for active contouring in this study.

Results: The tumor volumes measured from MPRAGE and VIBE sequences using the non-supervised auto-contouring method were compared with manually performed treatment planning system (TPS) contours. Tumor volume measured from MPRAGE is 4.97±5.85 cm3 vs. 3.76±3.7 cm3 from VIBE. The non-supervised auto-contouring method measured tumor volume is 46%±25% vs. 40%±22% of the TPS tumor contour volume. One-way ANOVA analysis showed the p-value = 0.18, which indicates there is no significant difference between the three tumor volume mean measurements.

Conclusions: There are limited patients in the study and the brain tumors had varying primary cancers. A mix of intact and post-operative resections were analyzed. The conspicuity of the tumor affected the performance of the non-supervised auto-contouring. However, the study demonstrated that MPRAGE is in general better than VIBE in contouring the tumor volume using fully automated software with percent difference compared to the gold standard (TPS): MPRAGE 42% vs. VIBE 57%. The auto-contour method in general underestimates the treatment region compared to TPS. In some cases the MPRAGE scan time is < 2.4x VIBE scan time. This quicker scan time can contribute to the reduction in noise in the acquisitions and ultimately the interpretation and contouring.

Related content

abstract
non-peer-reviewed

A Comparison of Intracranial Gross Tumor Volumes Generated on MPRAGE and VIBE MR Protocols


Author Information

Amelia Wexler Corresponding Author

Radiation Oncology, University of Missouri, Columbia, USA

Gregory Biedermann

Division of Radiation Oncology, University of Missouri School of Medicine, Columbia, USA

Joseph Cousins

Radiology, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA

Shiyang Wang

Radiology, University of Missouri, Columbia, USA


PDF Share