Search

Background: Magnetic resonance‐guided radiotherapy with an MR‐guided LINAC represents potential clinical benefits in abdominal treatments due to the superior soft‐tissue contrast compared to kV‐based images in conventional treatment units. However, due to the high cost associated with this technology, only a few centers have access to it. As an alternative, synthetic 4D MRI generation based on artificial intelligence methods could be implemented. Nevertheless, appropriate MRI texture generation from CT images might be challenging and prone to hallucinations, compromising motion accuracy. Purpose: To evaluate the feasibility of on‐board synthetic motion‐resolved 4D MRI generation from prior 4D MRI, on‐board 4D cone beam CT (CBCT) images, motion modeling information, and deep learning models using the digital anthropomorphic phantom XCAT. Methods: The synthetic 4D MRI corresponds to phases from on‐board 4D CBCT. Each synthetic MRI volume in the 4D MRI was generated by warping a reference 3D MRI (MRIref, end of expiration phase from a prior 4D MRI) with a deformation field map (DFM) determined by (I) the eigenvectors from the principal component analysis (PCA) motion‐modeling of the prior 4D MRI, and (II) the corresponding eigenvalues predicted by a convolutional neural network (CNN) model using the on‐board 4D CBCT images as input. The CNN was trained with 1000 deformations of one reference CT (CTref, same conditions as MRIref) generated by applying 1000 DFMs computed by randomly sampling the original eigenvalues from the prior 4D MRI PCA model. The evaluation metrics for the CNN model were root‐mean‐square error (RMSE) and mean absolute error (MAE). Finally, different on‐board 4D‐MRI generation scenarios were assessed by changing the respiratory period, the amplitude of the diaphragm, and the chest wall motion of the 4D CBCT using normalized root‐mean‐square error (nRMSE) and structural similarity index measure (SSIM) for image‐based evaluation, and volume dice coefficient (VDC), volume percent difference (VPD), and center‐of‐mass shift (COMS) for contour‐based evaluation of liver and target volumes. Results: The RMSE and MAE values of the CNN model reported 0.012 ± 0.001 and 0.010 ± 0.001, respectively for the first eigenvalue predictions. SSIM and nRMSE were 0.96 ± 0.06 and 0.22 ± 0.08, respectively. VDC, VPD, and COMS were 0.92 ± 0.06, 3.08 ± 3.73 %, and 2.3 ± 2.1 mm, respectively, for the target volume. The more challenging synthetic 4D‐MRI generation scenario was for one 4D‐CBCT with increased chest wall motion amplitude, reporting SSIM and nRMSE of 0.82 and 0.51, respectively. Conclusions: On‐board synthetic 4D‐MRI generation based on predicting actual treatment deformation from on‐board 4D‐CBCT represents a method that can potentially improve the treatment‐setup localization in abdominal radiotherapy treatments with a conventional kV‐based LINAC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]