{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Reducing electromagnetic interference in MR thermometry: A comparison of setup configurations for MR-guided microwave ablations.
{Author}: Schröer S;Düx D;Löning Caballero JJ;Glandorf J;Gerlach T;Horstmann D;Belker O;Gutt M;Wacker F;Speck O;Hensen B;Gutberlet M;
{Journal}: Z Med Phys
{Volume}: 0
{Issue}: 0
{Year}: 2024 Aug 10
{Factor}: 7.215
{DOI}: 10.1016/j.zemedi.2024.07.004
{Abstract}: Magnetic Resonance (MR) thermometry is used for the monitoring of MR-guided microwave ablations (MWA), and for the intraoperative evaluation of ablation regions. Nevertheless, the accuracy of temperature mapping may be compromised by electromagnetic interference emanating from the microwave (MW) generator. This study evaluated different setups for improving magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) during MWA with a modified MW generator. MWA was performed in 15 gel phantoms comparing three setups: The MW generator was placed outside the MR scanner room, either connected to the MW applicator using a penetration panel with a radiofrequency (RF) filter and a 7 m coaxial cable (Setup 1), or through a waveguide using a 5 m coaxial cable (Setup 2). Setup 3 employed the MW generator within the MR scan room, connected by a 5 m coaxial cable. The coaxial cables in setups 2 and 3 were modified with custom shielding to reduce interference. The setups during ablation (active setup) were compared to a reference setup without the presence of the MW system. Thermometry and thermal dose maps (CEM43 model) were compared for the three configurations. Primary endpoints for assessment were signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), temperature precision, Sørensen-Dice-Coefficient (DSC), and RF-noise spectra. Setup 3 showed highly significant electromagnetic interference during ablation with a SNR decrease by -60.4%±13.5% (p<0.001) compared to reference imaging. For setup 1 and setup 2 no significant decrease in SNR was measured with differences of -2.9%±9.8% (p=0.6) and -1.5%±12.8% (p=0.8), respectively. SNR differences were significant between active setups 1 and 3 with -51.2%±16.1% (p<0.001) and between active setups 2 and 3 with -59.0%±15.5% (p<0.001) but not significant between active setups 1 and 2 with 19.0%±13.7% (p=0.09). Furthermore, no significant differences were seen in temperature precision or DSCs between all setups, ranging from 0.33 °C ± 0.04 °C (Setup 1) to 0.38 °C ± 0.06 °C (Setup 3) (p=0.6) and from 87.0%±1.6% (Setup 3) to 88.1%±1.6% (Setup 2) (p=0.58), respectively. Both setups (1 and 2) with the MW generator outside the MR scanner room were beneficial to reduce electromagnetic interference during MWA. Moreover, provided that a shielded cable is utilized in setups 2 and 3, all configurations displayed negligible differences in temperature precision and DSCs, indicating that the location of the MW generator does not significantly impact the accuracy of thermometry during MWA.