Dataset Information

Dosimetric Implications of Computerised Tomography-Only versus Magnetic Resonance-Fusion Contouring in Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer.

ABSTRACT: Background: Magnetic resonance (MR)-fusion contouring is the standard of care in prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for target volume localisation. However, the planning computerised tomography (CT) scan continues to be used for dose calculation and treatment planning and verification. Discrepancies between the planning MR and CT scans may negate the benefits of MR-fusion contouring and it adds a significant resource burden. We aimed to determine whether CT-only contouring resulted in a dosimetric detriment compared with MR-fusion contouring in prostate SBRT planning. Methods: We retrospectively compared target volumes and SBRT plans for 20 patients treated clinically with MR-fusion contouring (standard of care) with those produced by re-contouring using CT data only. Dose was 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions. CT-only contouring was done on two occasions blind to MR data and reviewed by a separate observer. Primary outcome was the difference in rectal volume receiving 36 Gy or above. Results: Absolute target volumes were similar: 63.5 cc (SD ± 27.9) versus 63.2 (SD ± 26.5), Dice coefficient 0.86 (SD ± 0.04). Mean difference in apex superior-inferior position was 1.1 (SD ± 3.5; CI: −0.4–2.6). Small dosimetric differences in favour of CT-only contours were seen, with the mean rectal V36 Gy 0.3 cc (95% CI: 0.1–0.5) lower for CT-only contouring. Conclusions: Prostate SBRT can be successfully planned without MR-fusion contouring. Consideration can be given to omitting MR-fusion from the prostate SBRT workflow, provided reference to diagnostic MR imaging is available. Development of MR-only work flow is a key research priority to gain access to the anatomical fidelity of MR imaging.

SUBMITTER: Henderson DR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6023312 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Dosimetric Implications of Computerised Tomography-Only versus Magnetic Resonance-Fusion Contouring in Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer.

Henderson Daniel R DR Tree Alison C AC Harrington Kevin J KJ van As Nicholas J NJ

Medicines (Basel, Switzerland) 20180405 2

<b>Background:</b> Magnetic resonance (MR)-fusion contouring is the standard of care in prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for target volume localisation. However, the planning computerised tomography (CT) scan continues to be used for dose calculation and treatment planning and verification. Discrepancies between the planning MR and CT scans may negate the benefits of MR-fusion contouring and it adds a significant resource burden. We aimed to determine whether CT-only contouring res ...[more]

PMID: 29621134

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) guidance offers multiple theoretical advantages in the context of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer. However, to our knowledge, these advantages have yet to be demonstrated in a randomized clinical trial.ObjectiveTo determine whether aggressive margin reduction with MRI guidance significantly reduces acute grade 2 or greater genitourinary (GU) toxic effects after prostate SBRT compared with computed tomography (CT) guidance.Design, setting, and participantsThis phase 3 randomized clinical trial (MRI-Guided Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer [MIRAGE]) enrolled men aged 18 years or older who were receiving SBRT for clinically localized prostate adenocarcinoma at a single center between May 5, 2020, and October 1, 2021. Data were analyzed from January 15, 2021, through May 15, 2022. All patients had 3 months or more of follow-up.InterventionsPatients were randomized 1:1 to SBRT with CT guidance (control arm) or MRI guidance. Planning margins of 4 mm (CT arm) and 2 mm (MRI arm) were used to deliver 40 Gy in 5 fractions.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was the incidence of acute (≤90 days after SBRT) grade 2 or greater GU toxic effects (using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.03 [CTCAE v4.03]). Secondary outcomes included CTCAE v4.03-based gastrointestinal toxic effects and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS)-based and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 (EPIC-26)-based outcomes.ResultsBetween May 2020 and October 2021, 156 patients were randomized: 77 to CT (median age, 71 years [IQR, 67-77 years]) and 79 to MRI (median age, 71 years [IQR, 68-75 years]). A prespecified interim futility analysis conducted after 100 patients reached 90 or more days after SBRT was performed October 1, 2021, with the sample size reestimated to 154 patients. Thus, the trial was closed to accrual early. The incidence of acute grade 2 or greater GU toxic effects was significantly lower with MRI vs CT guidance (24.4% [95% CI, 15.4%-35.4%] vs 43.4% [95% CI, 32.1%-55.3%]; P = .01), as was the incidence of acute grade 2 or greater gastrointestinal toxic effects (0.0% [95% CI, 0.0%-4.6%] vs 10.5% [95% CI, 4.7%-19.7%]; P = .003). Magnetic resonance imaging guidance was associated with a significantly smaller percentage of patients with a 15-point or greater increase in IPSS at 1 month (6.8% [5 of 72] vs 19.4% [14 of 74]; P = .01) and a significantly reduced percentage of patients with a clinically significant (≥12-point) decrease in EPIC-26 bowel scores (25.0% [17 of 68] vs 50.0% [34 of 68]; P = .001) at 1 month.Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, compared with CT-guidance, MRI-guided SBRT significantly reduced both moderate acute physician-scored toxic effects and decrements in patient-reported quality of life. Longer-term follow-up will confirm whether these notable benefits persist.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04384770.

Project description:BackgroundStereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is becoming increasingly used in treating localized prostate cancer (PCa), with evidence showing similar toxicity and efficacy profiles when compared with longer courses of definitive radiation. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided radiotherapy has multiple potential advantages over standard computed tomography (CT)-guided radiotherapy, including enhanced prostate visualization (abrogating the need for fiducials and MRI fusion), enhanced identification of the urethra, the ability to track the prostate in real-time, and the capacity to perform online adaptive planning. However, it is unknown whether these potential advantages translate into improved outcomes. This phase III randomized superiority trial is designed to prospectively evaluate whether toxicity is lower after MRI-guided versus CT-guided SBRT.MethodsThree hundred men with localized PCa will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to SBRT using CT or MRI guidance. Randomization will be stratified by baseline International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) (≤15 or > 15) and prostate gland volume (≤50 cc or > 50 cc). Five fractions of 8 Gy will be delivered to the prostate over the course of fourteen days, with or without hormonal therapy and elective nodal radiotherapy (to a dose of 5 Gy per fraction) as per the investigator's discretion. The primary endpoint is the incidence of physician-reported acute grade ≥ 2 genitourinary (GU) toxicity (during the first 90 days after SBRT), as assessed by the CTCAE version 4.03 scale. Secondary clinical endpoints include incidence of acute grade ≥ 2 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, 5-year cumulative incidences of physician-reported late grade ≥ 2 GU and GI toxicity, temporal changes in patient-reported quality of life (QOL) outcomes, 5-year biochemical recurrence-free survival and the proportion of fractions of MRI-guided SBRT in which online adaptive radiotherapy is used.DiscussionThe MIRAGE trial is the first randomized trial comparing MRI-guided with standard CT-guided SBRT for localized PCa. The primary hypothesis is that MRI-guided SBRT will lead to an improvement in the cumulative incidence of acute grade ≥ 2 GU toxicity when compared to CT-guided SBRT. The pragmatic superiority design focused on an acute toxicity endpoint will allow an early comparison of the two technologies.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04384770. Date of registration: May 12, 2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04384770 PROTOCOL VERSION: Version 2.1, Aug 28, 2020.

Project description:Purpose/objectiveStereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has emerged as a valid treatment alternative for non-resectable liver metastases or hepatocellular carcinomas (HCC). Magnetic resonance (MR) guided SBRT has a high potential of further improving treatment quality, allowing for higher, tumoricidal irradiation doses whilst simultaneously sparing organs at risk. However, data on treatment outcome and patient acceptance is still limited.Material/methodsWe performed a subgroup analysis of an ongoing prospective observational study comprising patients with liver metastases or HCC. Patients were treated with ablative MR-guided SBRT at the MRIdian Linac in the Department of Radiation Oncology at Heidelberg University Hospital between January 2019 and February 2020. Local control (LC) and overall survival (OS) analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. An in-house designed patient-reported outcome questionnaire was used to measure patients' experience with the MR-Linac treatment. Toxicity was evaluated using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v. 5.0).ResultsTwenty patients (with n = 18 metastases; n = 2 HCC) received MR-guided SBRT for in total 26 malignant liver lesions. Median biologically effective dose (BED at α/β = 10) was 105.0 Gy (range: 67.2-112.5 Gy) and median planning target volume was 57.20 ml (range: 17.4-445.0 ml). Median treatment time was 39.0 min (range: 26.0-67.0 min). At 1-year, LC was 88.1% and OS was 84.0%. Grade I° gastrointestinal toxicity °occurred in 30.0% and grade II° in 5.0% of the patients with no grade III° or higher toxicity. Overall treatment experience was rated positively, with items scoring MR-Linac staff's performance and items concerning the breath hold process being among the top positively rated elements. Worst scored items were treatment duration, positioning and low temperature.ConclusionMR-guided SBRT of liver tumors is a well-tolerated and well-accepted treatment modality. Initial results are promising with excellent local control and only mildest toxicity. However, prospective studies are warranted to truly assess the potential of MR-guided liver SBRT and to identify which patients profit most from this new versatile technology.

Project description:BackgroundProstate cancer rates have been steadily increasing in recent years. As high-precision radiation therapy methods, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and carbon-ion radiation therapy (CIRT) have unique advantages. Analyzing the dosimetric differences between SBRT and CIRT in the treatment of localized prostate cancer can help provide patients with more accurate, individualized treatment plans.MethodsWe selected computed tomography positioning images and the contours of target volumes of 16 patients with localized prostate cancer who received radiotherapy. We delineated the organs at risk (OARs) on the CyberKnife (CK) treatment planning system (TPS) MultiPlan4.0, which were imported into the CIRT uniform scanning TPS HIMM-1 ci-Plan. Two treatment plans, SBRT and CIRT, were designed for the same patient, and we used SPSS 22.0 for the statistical analysis of data.ResultsBoth SBRT and CIRT plans met the prescribed dose requirements. In terms of target volume exposure dose, D2 (P<0.001), D5 (P<0.001), D50 (P<0.001), D90 (P=0.029), D95 (P<0.001), D98 (P<0.001), and Dmean (P<0.001) under SBRT were significantly higher than those under CIRT; the conformity index (CI) under SBRT was significantly better than that under CIRT (P<0.001); the target volume coverage rate (V95%) and dose homogeneity index (HI) under CIRT were significantly better than those under SBRT (P<0.001). In terms of OAR exposure dosage, the Dmax of the bladder and rectum under SBRT was significantly lower than that under CIRT (P<0.001), but Dmean was in the other direction; the exposure dose of the intestinal tract under CIRT was significantly lower than that under SBRT (P<0.05); Dmax of the femoral head under CIRT was significantly lower than that under SBRT (P<0.05), and there was no statistical difference between them at other doses.ConclusionsIn this study, we found that when CIRT was used for treating localized prostate cancer, the dose distribution in target volume was more homogeneous and the coverage rate was higher; the average dose of OARs was lower. SBRT had a better CI and higher dose in target volume; the dose hotspot was lower in OARs. It is important to comprehensively consider the dose relationship between local tumor and surrounding tissues when selecting treatment plans.

Project description:ObjectiveUsing moderate or ultra-hypofractionation, which is also known as stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for treatment of localized prostate cancer patients has been increased. We present our preliminary results on the clinical utilization of MRI-guided adaptive radiotherapy (MRgRT) for prostate cancer patients with the workflow, dosimetric parameters, toxicities and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response.Methods50 prostate cancer patients treated with ultra-hypofractionation were included in the study. Treatment was performed with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (step and shoot) technique and daily plan adaptation using MRgRT. The SBRT consisted of 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions with a 7.25 Gy fraction size. The time for workflow steps was documented. Patients were followed for the acute and late toxicities and PSA response.ResultsThe median follow-up for our cohort was 10 months (range between 3 and 29 months). The median age was 73.5 years (range between 50 and 84 years). MRgRT was well tolerated by all patients. Acute genitourinary (GU) toxicity rate of Grade 1 and Grade 2 was 28 and 36%, respectively. Only 6% of patients had acute Grade 1 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity and there was no Grade ≥ 2 GI toxicity. To date, late Grade 1 GU toxicity was experienced by 24% of patients, 2% of patients experienced Grade 2 GU toxicity and 6% of patients reported Grade 2 GI toxicity. Due to the short follow-up, PSA nadir has not been reached yet in our cohort.ConclusionIn conclusion, MRgRT represents a new method for delivering SBRT with markerless soft tissue visualization, online adaptive planning and real-time tracking. Our study suggests that ultra-hypofractionation has an acceptable acute and very low late toxicity profile.Advances in knowledgeMRgRT represents a new markerless method for delivering SBRT for localized prostate cancer providing online adaptive planning and real-time tracking and acute and late toxicity profile is acceptable.

Dataset Information

Dosimetric Implications of Computerised Tomography-Only versus Magnetic Resonance-Fusion Contouring in Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer.

Publications

Dosimetric Implications of Computerised Tomography-Only versus Magnetic Resonance-Fusion Contouring in Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets