Object. Innovative new software solutions may enable image fusion to produce the desired data superposition for precise target definition and follow-up studies in radiosurgery/stereotactic radiotherapy in patients with intracranial lesions. The aim is to integrate the anatomical and functional information completely into the radiation treatment planning and to achieve an exact comparison for follow-up examinations. Special conditions and advantages of BrainLAB's fully automatic image fusion system are evaluated and described for this purpose.
Methods. In 458 patients, the radiation treatment planning and some follow-up studies were performed using an automatic image fusion technique involving the use of different imaging modalities. Each fusion was visually checked and corrected as necessary. The computerized tomography (CT) scans for radiation treatment planning (slice thickness 1.25 mm), as well as stereotactic angiography for arteriovenous malformations, were acquired using head fixation with stereotactic arc or, in the case of stereotactic radiotherapy, with a relocatable stereotactic mask. Different magnetic resonance (MR) imaging sequences (T1, T2, and fluid-attenuated inversion-recovery images) and positron emission tomography (PET) scans were obtained without head fixation. Fusion results and the effects on radiation treatment planning and follow-up studies were analyzed.
The precision level of the results of the automatic fusion depended primarily on the image quality, especially the slice thickness and the field homogeneity when using MR images, as well as on patient movement during data acquisition. Fully automated image fusion of different MR, CT, and PET studies was performed for each patient. Only in a few cases was it necessary to correct the fusion manually after visual evaluation. These corrections were minor and did not materially affect treatment planning. High-quality fusion of thin slices of a region of interest with a complete head data set could be performed easily. The target volume for radiation treatment planning could be accurately delineated using multimodal information provided by CT, MR, angiography, and PET studies. The fusion of follow-up image data sets yielded results that could be successfully compared and quantitatively evaluated.
Conclusions. Depending on the quality of the originally acquired image, automated image fusion can be a very valuable tool, allowing for fast (∼ 1–2 minute) and precise fusion of all relevant data sets. Fused multimodality imaging improves the target volume definition for radiation treatment planning. High-quality follow-up image data sets should be acquired for image fusion to provide exactly comparable slices and volumetric results that will contribute to quality contol.
Anti-Kir4.1 Antibodies in Multiple Sclerosis: Specificity and Pathogenicity
