1
|
Villegas F, Dal Bello R, Alvarez-Andres E, Dhont J, Janssen T, Milan L, Robert C, Salagean GAM, Tejedor N, Trnková P, Fusella M, Placidi L, Cusumano D. Challenges and opportunities in the development and clinical implementation of artificial intelligence based synthetic computed tomography for magnetic resonance only radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2024; 198:110387. [PMID: 38885905 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110387] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/29/2023] [Revised: 06/13/2024] [Accepted: 06/13/2024] [Indexed: 06/20/2024]
Abstract
Synthetic computed tomography (sCT) generated from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can serve as a substitute for planning CT in radiation therapy (RT), thereby removing registration uncertainties associated with multi-modality imaging pairing, reducing costs and patient radiation exposure. CE/FDA-approved sCT solutions are nowadays available for pelvis, brain, and head and neck, while more complex deep learning (DL) algorithms are under investigation for other anatomic sites. The main challenge in achieving a widespread clinical implementation of sCT lies in the absence of consensus on sCT commissioning and quality assurance (QA), resulting in variation of sCT approaches across different hospitals. To address this issue, a group of experts gathered at the ESTRO Physics Workshop 2022 to discuss the integration of sCT solutions into clinics and report the process and its outcomes. This position paper focuses on aspects of sCT development and commissioning, outlining key elements crucial for the safe implementation of an MRI-only RT workflow.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fernanda Villegas
- Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institute, Solna, Sweden; Radiotherapy Physics and Engineering, Medical Radiation Physics and Nuclear Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, Solna, Sweden
| | - Riccardo Dal Bello
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Emilie Alvarez-Andres
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany; Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany
| | - Jennifer Dhont
- Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles (H.U.B), Institut Jules Bordet, Department of Medical Physics, Brussels, Belgium; Université Libre De Bruxelles (ULB), Radiophysics and MRI Physics Laboratory, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Tomas Janssen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Lisa Milan
- Medical Physics Unit, Imaging Institute of Southern Switzerland (IIMSI), Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale, Bellinzona, Switzerland
| | - Charlotte Robert
- UMR 1030 Molecular Radiotherapy and Therapeutic Innovations, ImmunoRadAI, Paris-Saclay University, Institut Gustave Roussy, Inserm, Villejuif, France; Department of Radiation Oncology, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
| | - Ghizela-Ana-Maria Salagean
- Faculty of Physics, Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania; Department of Radiation Oncology, TopMed Medical Centre, Targu Mures, Romania
| | - Natalia Tejedor
- Department of Medical Physics and Radiation Protection, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Petra Trnková
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Marco Fusella
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Abano Terme Hospital, Italy
| | - Lorenzo Placidi
- Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Oncological Radiotherapy and Hematology, Rome, Italy.
| | - Davide Cusumano
- Mater Olbia Hospital, Strada Statale Orientale Sarda 125, Olbia, Sassari, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Dayarathna S, Islam KT, Uribe S, Yang G, Hayat M, Chen Z. Deep learning based synthesis of MRI, CT and PET: Review and analysis. Med Image Anal 2024; 92:103046. [PMID: 38052145 DOI: 10.1016/j.media.2023.103046] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/05/2023] [Revised: 11/14/2023] [Accepted: 11/29/2023] [Indexed: 12/07/2023]
Abstract
Medical image synthesis represents a critical area of research in clinical decision-making, aiming to overcome the challenges associated with acquiring multiple image modalities for an accurate clinical workflow. This approach proves beneficial in estimating an image of a desired modality from a given source modality among the most common medical imaging contrasts, such as Computed Tomography (CT), Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), and Positron Emission Tomography (PET). However, translating between two image modalities presents difficulties due to the complex and non-linear domain mappings. Deep learning-based generative modelling has exhibited superior performance in synthetic image contrast applications compared to conventional image synthesis methods. This survey comprehensively reviews deep learning-based medical imaging translation from 2018 to 2023 on pseudo-CT, synthetic MR, and synthetic PET. We provide an overview of synthetic contrasts in medical imaging and the most frequently employed deep learning networks for medical image synthesis. Additionally, we conduct a detailed analysis of each synthesis method, focusing on their diverse model designs based on input domains and network architectures. We also analyse novel network architectures, ranging from conventional CNNs to the recent Transformer and Diffusion models. This analysis includes comparing loss functions, available datasets and anatomical regions, and image quality assessments and performance in other downstream tasks. Finally, we discuss the challenges and identify solutions within the literature, suggesting possible future directions. We hope that the insights offered in this survey paper will serve as a valuable roadmap for researchers in the field of medical image synthesis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sanuwani Dayarathna
- Department of Data Science and AI, Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University, Clayton VIC 3800, Australia.
| | | | - Sergio Uribe
- Department of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Monash University, Clayton VIC 3800, Australia
| | - Guang Yang
- Bioengineering Department and Imperial-X, Imperial College London, W12 7SL, United Kingdom
| | - Munawar Hayat
- Department of Data Science and AI, Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University, Clayton VIC 3800, Australia
| | - Zhaolin Chen
- Department of Data Science and AI, Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University, Clayton VIC 3800, Australia; Monash Biomedical Imaging, Clayton VIC 3800, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Krokos G, MacKewn J, Dunn J, Marsden P. A review of PET attenuation correction methods for PET-MR. EJNMMI Phys 2023; 10:52. [PMID: 37695384 PMCID: PMC10495310 DOI: 10.1186/s40658-023-00569-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/14/2023] [Accepted: 08/07/2023] [Indexed: 09/12/2023] Open
Abstract
Despite being thirteen years since the installation of the first PET-MR system, the scanners constitute a very small proportion of the total hybrid PET systems installed. This is in stark contrast to the rapid expansion of the PET-CT scanner, which quickly established its importance in patient diagnosis within a similar timeframe. One of the main hurdles is the development of an accurate, reproducible and easy-to-use method for attenuation correction. Quantitative discrepancies in PET images between the manufacturer-provided MR methods and the more established CT- or transmission-based attenuation correction methods have led the scientific community in a continuous effort to develop a robust and accurate alternative. These can be divided into four broad categories: (i) MR-based, (ii) emission-based, (iii) atlas-based and the (iv) machine learning-based attenuation correction, which is rapidly gaining momentum. The first is based on segmenting the MR images in various tissues and allocating a predefined attenuation coefficient for each tissue. Emission-based attenuation correction methods aim in utilising the PET emission data by simultaneously reconstructing the radioactivity distribution and the attenuation image. Atlas-based attenuation correction methods aim to predict a CT or transmission image given an MR image of a new patient, by using databases containing CT or transmission images from the general population. Finally, in machine learning methods, a model that could predict the required image given the acquired MR or non-attenuation-corrected PET image is developed by exploiting the underlying features of the images. Deep learning methods are the dominant approach in this category. Compared to the more traditional machine learning, which uses structured data for building a model, deep learning makes direct use of the acquired images to identify underlying features. This up-to-date review goes through the literature of attenuation correction approaches in PET-MR after categorising them. The various approaches in each category are described and discussed. After exploring each category separately, a general overview is given of the current status and potential future approaches along with a comparison of the four outlined categories.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Georgios Krokos
- School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, The PET Centre at St Thomas' Hospital London, King's College London, 1st Floor Lambeth Wing, Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
| | - Jane MacKewn
- School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, The PET Centre at St Thomas' Hospital London, King's College London, 1st Floor Lambeth Wing, Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7EH, UK
| | - Joel Dunn
- School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, The PET Centre at St Thomas' Hospital London, King's College London, 1st Floor Lambeth Wing, Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7EH, UK
| | - Paul Marsden
- School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, The PET Centre at St Thomas' Hospital London, King's College London, 1st Floor Lambeth Wing, Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7EH, UK
| |
Collapse
|