RESUMO
Background & purpose: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used in treatment preparation of ocular proton therapy, but its spatial accuracy might be limited by geometric distortions due to susceptibility artefacts. A correct geometry of the MR images is paramount since it defines where the dose will be delivered. In this study, we assessed the geometrical accuracy of ocular MRI. Materials & methods: A dedicated ocular 3 T MRI protocol, with localized shimming and increased gradients, was compared to computed tomography (CT) and X-ray images in a phantom and in 15 uveal melanoma patients. The MRI protocol contained three-dimensional T2-weighted and T1-weighted sequences with an isotropic reconstruction resolution of 0.3-0.4 mm. Tantalum clips were identified by three observers and clip-clip distances were compared between T2-weighted and T1-weighted MRI, CT and X-ray images for the phantom and between MRI and X-ray images for the patients. Results: Interobserver variability was below 0.35 mm for the phantom and 0.30(T1)/0.61(T2) mm in patients. Mean absolute differences between MRI and reference were below 0.27 ± 0.16 mm and 0.32 ± 0.23 mm for the phantom and in patients, respectively. In patients, clip-clip distances were slightly larger on MRI than on X-ray images (mean difference T1: 0.11 ± 0.38 mm, T2: 0.10 ± 0.44 mm). Differences did not increase at larger distances and did not correlate to interobserver variability. Conclusions: A dedicated ocular MRI protocol can produce images of the eye with a geometrical accuracy below half the MRI acquisition voxel (<0.4 mm). Therefore, these images can be used for ocular proton therapy planning, both in the current model-based workflow and in proposed three-dimensional MR-based workflows.
RESUMO
Purpose: Although fundus photography is extensively used in ophthalmology, refraction prevents accurate distance measurement on fundus images, as the resulting scaling differs between subjects due to varying ocular anatomy. We propose a PARaxial Optical fundus Scaling (PAROS) method to correct for this variation using commonly available clinical data. Methods: The complete optics of the eye and fundus camera were modeled using ray transfer matrix formalism to obtain fundus image magnification. The subject's ocular geometry was personalized using biometry, spherical equivalent of refraction (RSE), keratometry, and/or corneal topography data. The PAROS method was validated using 41 different eye phantoms and subsequently evaluated in 44 healthy phakic subjects (of whom 11 had phakic intraocular lenses [pIOLs]), 29 pseudophakic subjects, and 21 patients with uveal melanoma. Results: Validation of the PAROS method showed small differences between model and actual image magnification (maximum 3.3%). Relative to the average eye, large differences in fundus magnification were observed, ranging from 0.79 to 1.48. Magnification was strongly inversely related to RSE (R2 = 0.67). In phakic subjects, magnification was directly proportional to axial length (R2 = 0.34). The inverse relation was seen in pIOL (R2 = 0.79) and pseudophakic (R2 = 0.12) subjects. RSE was a strong contributor to magnification differences (1%-83%). As this effect is not considered in the commonly used Bennett-Littmann method, statistically significant differences up to 40% (mean absolute 9%) were observed compared to the PAROS method (P < 0.001). Conclusions: The significant differences in fundus image scaling observed among subjects can be accurately accounted for with the PAROS method, enabling more accurate quantitative assessment of fundus photography.
