Dose uncertainty and resolution of polymer gel dosimetry using an MRI guided radiation therapy system's onboard 0.35 T scanner

Abstract

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanners are widely used for 3D gel dosimeters readout. However, limited access to MRI scanners is a challenge in MRI-based gel dosimetry. Recent clinical implementation of MRI-guided radiation therapy machines provides potential opportunities for onboard gel dosimetry using its MRI subsystem. The objective of this study was to investigate the feasibility of gel dosimetry using ViewRay's onboard 0.35 T MRI scanner. A BANG® polymer gel dosimeter was irradiated by three beams of 3 × 3 cm² field size. The T₂ relaxation rate (R₂) of the irradiated gel was measured using a Philips 1.5 T Ingenia MRI and a ViewRay 0.35 T onboard MRI and spin-echo pulse sequences. The number of signal averages (NSA) was set to 16 for the ViewRay acquisitions and one for the Philips 1.5 T MRI to achieve similar signal-to-noise ratios. The in-plane spatial resolution was 1.5 × 1.5 mm² and the slice thickness was 5 mm. The relative dose uncertainty was obtained using R₂ versus dose curves to compare the performance of dosimetry using the two different MRIs and field strengths. The dose uncertainty decreased from 12% at 2 Gy to 3.5% at 7.5 Gy at 1.5 T. The dose uncertainty decreased from 13% at 2 Gy to 4% at 7.5 Gy with NSA = 16 and 3 × 3 mm² pixel size, and from 10.5% at 2 Gy to 3.2% at 7.5 Gy with NSA = 16 and denoised R₂ maps (1.5 × 1.5 mm² pixel size) at 0.35 T. The mean of dose resolution was 0.4 Gy at 1.5 T while the mean of dose resolution was 0.8 Gy and 0.64 Gy at 0.35 T by downsampling and denoising the R2 map, respectively. Therefore, comparable dose uncertainty was achievable using the ViewRay's onboard 0.35 T and Philips 1.5 T MRI scanners. 3D gel dosimetry using onboard low-field MRI scanner provides ViewRay users a 3D high resolution dosimetry option besides film and ionization chamber.

Figure 1.

The R₂ maps obtained using SE (left column) and CPMG (right column) pulse sequences with NSA= 1 at 1.5 T (a and b), NSA= 1 at 0.35 T (c and d), NSA=16 at 0.35 T (e and f), NSA=16 and 3 × 3 mm² pixel size at 0.35 T (g and h), and NSA=16 and denoised at 0.35 T (i and j).

Figure 2.

Lateral profiles through the center of R₂ maps using SE (left column) and CPMG (right column) pulse sequences with NSA= 1 at 1.5 T (a and b), NSA= 1 at 0.35 T (c and d), NSA=16 at 0.35 T (e and f), NSA=16 and 3 × 3 mm² pixel size at 0.35 T (g and h), and NSA=16 and denoised at 0.35 T (i and j).

Figure 3.

Relative dose uncertainty using SE (left column) and CPMG (right column) pulse sequences with NSA= 1 at 1.5 T (a and b), NSA= 1 at 0.35 T (c and d), NSA=16 at 0.35 T (e and f), NSA=16 and 3 × 3 mm² pixel size at 0.35 T (g and h), and NSA=16 and denoised at 0.35 T (i and j).

Figure 4.

Dose resolution using SE (left column) and CPMG (right column) pulse sequences with NSA= 1 at 1.5 T (a and b), NSA= 1 at 0.35 T (c and d), NSA=16 at 0.35 T (e and f), NSA=16 and 3 × 3 mm² pixel size at 0.35 T (g and h), and NSA=16 and denoised at 0.35 T (i and j).