This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Purpose To develop and evaluate a patch‐based convolutional neural network (CNN) to generate synthetic computed tomography (sCT) images for magnetic resonance (MR)‐only workflow for radiotherapy of head and neck tumors. A patch‐based deep learning method was chosen to improve robustness to abnormal anatomies caused by large tumors, surgical excisions, or dental artifacts. In this study, we evaluate whether the generated sCT images enable accurate MR‐based dose calculations in the head and neck region. Methods We conducted a retrospective study on 34 patients with head and neck cancer who underwent both CT and MR imaging for radiotherapy treatment planning. To generate the sCTs, a large field‐of‐view T2‐weighted Turbo Spin Echo MR sequence was used from the clinical protocol for multiple types of head and neck tumors. To align images as well as possible on a voxel‐wise level, CT scans were nonrigidly registered to the MR (CTreg). The CNN was based on a U‐net architecture and consisted of 14 layers with 3 × 3 × 3 filters. Patches of 48 × 48 × 48 were randomly extracted and fed into the training. sCTs were created for all patients using threefold cross validation. For each patient, the clinical CT‐based treatment plan was recalculated on sCT using Monaco TPS (Elekta). We evaluated mean absolute error (MAE) and mean error (ME) within the body contours and dice scores in air and bone mask. Also, dose differences and gamma pass rates between CT‐ and sCT‐based plans inside the body contours were calculated. Results sCT generation took 4 min per patient. The MAE over the patient population of the sCT within the intersection of body contours was 75 ± 9 Hounsfield Units (HU) (±1 SD), and the ME was 9 ± 11 HU. Dice scores of the air and bone masks (CTreg vs sCT) were 0.79 ± 0.08 and 0.70 ± 0.07, respectively. Dosimetric analysis showed mean deviations of −0.03% ± 0.05% for dose within the body contours and −0.07% ± 0.22% inside the >90% dose volume. Dental artifacts obscuring the CT could be circumvented in the sCT by the CNN‐based approach in combination with Turbo Spin Echo (TSE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequence that typically is less prone to susceptibility artifacts. Conclusions The presented CNN generated sCTs from conventional MR images without adding scan time to the acquisition. Dosimetric evaluation suggests that dose calculations performed on the sCTs are accurate, and can therefore be used for MR‐only radiotherapy treatment planning of the head and neck.

No abstract

This study evaluated the accuracy of synthetic computed tomography (sCT), as compared to CT, for the 3D assessment of the hip morphology. Thirty male patients with asymptomatic hips, referred for magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and CT, were included in this retrospective study. sCT images were generated from threedimensional radiofrequency-spoiled T1-weighted multi-echo gradient-echo MR images using a commercially available deep learning-enabled software and were compared with CT images through mean error and surface distance computation and by means of eight clinical morphometric parameters relevant for hip care.Parameters included center-edge angle (CEA), sharp angle, acetabular index, extrusion index, femoral head center-to-midline distance, acetabular version (AV), and anterior and posterior acetabular sector angles. They were measured by two senior orthopedic surgeons and a radiologist in-training on CT and sCT images. The reliability and agreement of CT-and sCT-based measurements were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for absolute agreement, Bland-Altman plots, and two one-sided tests for equivalence. The surface distance between CTand sCT-based bone models were on average submillimeter. CT-and sCT-based measurements showed moderate to excellent interobserver and intraobserver correlation (0.56 < ICC < 0.99). In particular, the inter/intraobserver agreements were good for AV (ICC > 0.75). For CEA, the intraobserver agreement was good (ICC > 0.75) and the interobserver agreement was moderate (ICC > 0.69). Limits of agreements were similar between intraobserver CT and intermodal measurements.All measurements were found statistically equivalent, with average intermodal differences within the intraobserver limits of agreement. In conclusion, sCT and CT were equivalent for the assessment of the hip joint bone morphology.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly utilized as a radiation‐free alternative to computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis and treatment planning of musculoskeletal pathologies. MR imaging of hard tissues such as cortical bone remains challenging due to their low proton density and short transverse relaxation times, rendering bone tissues as nonspecific low signal structures on MR images obtained from most sequences. Developments in MR image acquisition and post‐processing have opened the path for enhanced MR‐based bone visualization aiming to provide a CT‐like contrast and, as such, ease clinical interpretation. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of studies comparing MR and CT imaging for diagnostic and treatment planning purposes in orthopedic care, with a special focus on selective bone visualization, bone segmentation, and three‐dimensional (3D) modeling. This review discusses conventional gradient‐echo derived techniques as well as dedicated short echo time acquisition techniques and post‐processing techniques, including the generation of synthetic CT, in the context of 3D and specific bone visualization. Based on the reviewed literature, it may be concluded that the recent developments in MRI‐based bone visualization are promising. MRI alone provides valuable information on both bone and soft tissues for a broad range of applications including diagnostics, 3D modeling, and treatment planning in multiple anatomical regions, including the skull, spine, shoulder, pelvis, and long bones. Level of Evidence 3 Technical Efficacy Stage 3