Dataset Information

Clinical experience and workflow challenges with magnetic resonance-only radiation therapy simulation and planning for prostate cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Background and purpose

Magnetic Resonance (MR)-only planning has been implemented clinically for radiotherapy of prostate cancer. However, fewer studies exist regarding the overall success rate of MR-only workflows. We report on successes and challenges of implementing MR-only workflows for prostate.

Materials and methods

A total of 585 patients with prostate cancer underwent an MR-only simulation and planning between 06/2016-06/2018. MR simulation included images for contouring, synthetic-CT generation and fiducial identification. Workflow interruptions occurred that required a backup CT, a re-simulation or an update to our current quality assurance (QA) process. The challenges were prospectively evaluated and classified into syn-CT generation, motion/artifacts in the MRs, fiducial QA and bowel preparation guidelines.

Results

MR-only simulation was successful in 544 (93.2 %) patients. . In seventeen patients (2.9%), reconstruction of synthetic-CT failed due to patient size, femur angulation, or failure to determine the body contour. Twenty-four patients (4.1%) underwent a repeat/backup CT scan because of artifacts on the MR such as image blur due to patient motion or biopsy/surgical artifacts that hampered identification of the implanted fiducial markers. In patients requiring large coverage due to nodal involvement, inhomogeneity artifacts were resolved by using a two-stack acquisition and adaptive inhomogeneity correction. Bowel preparation guidelines were modified to address frequent rectum/gas issues due to longer MR scan time.

Conclusions

MR-only simulation has been successfully implemented for a majority of patients in the clinic. However, MR-CT or CT-only pathway may still be needed for patients where MR-only solution fails or patients with MR contraindications.

SUBMITTER: Tyagi N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7598055 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Purpose To assess the effect of a combination of compressed sensing and SENSitivity Encoding (SENSE) acceleration techniques on radiation therapy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) simulation workflows. Methods and Materials Thirty-seven acquisitions were performed with both SENSE-only (SENSE) and combined compressed sensing and SENSE (CS) techniques in 24 patients receiving radiation therapy MRI simulation for a wide range of disease sites. The anatomic field of view prescription and image resolution were identical for both SENSE and CS acquisitions to ensure fair comparison. The acquisition time of all images was recorded to assess time savings. For each image pair, image quality, and ability to contour were assessed by 2 radiation oncologists. Aside from direct image pair comparisons, the feasibility of using CS to improve MRI simulation protocols by increasing image resolution, field of view, and reducing motion artifacts was also evaluated. Results CS resulted in an average reduction of 27% in scan time with negligible changes in image quality and the ability to contour structures for RT treatment planning compared with SENSE. Physician scoring of image quality and ability to contour shows that while SENSE still has slightly better image quality compared with CS, this observed difference in image quality did not affect the ability to contour. In addition, the higher acceleration capability of CS enabled use of superior-inferior direction phase encoding in a sagittal 3-dimensional T2-weighted scan for substantially improved visibility of the prostatic urethra, which eliminated the need for a Foley catheter in most patients. Conclusions The combination of compressed sensing and parallel imaging resulted in marked improvements in the MRI Simulation workflow. The scan time was reduced without significantly affecting image quality in the context of ability to contour. The acceleration capabilities allowed for increased image resolution under similar scanning times as well as significantly improved urethra visualization in prostate simulations.

Project description:IntroductionPancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAC) has some of the worst treatment outcomes for any solid tumor. PAC creates substantial difficulty for effective treatment with traditional RT delivery strategies primarily secondary to its location and limited visualization using CT. Several of these challenges are uniquely addressed with MR-guided RT. We sought to summarize and place into context the currently available literature on MR-guided RT specifically for PAC.MethodsA literature search was conducted to identify manuscript publications since September 2014 that specifically used MR-guided RT for the treatment of PAC. Clinical outcomes of these series are summarized, discussed, and placed into the context of the existing pancreatic literature. Multiple international experts were involved to optimally contextualize these publications.ResultsOver 300 manuscripts were reviewed. A total of 6 clinical outcomes publications were identified that have treated patients with PAC using MR guidance. Successes, challenges, and future directions for this technology are evident in these publications. MR-guided RT holds theoretical promise for the treatment of patients with PAC. As with any new technology, immediate or dramatic clinical improvements associated with its use will take time and experience. There remain no prospective trials, currently publications are limited to small retrospective experiences. The current level of evidence for MR guidance in PAC is low and requires significant expansion. Future directions and ongoing studies that are currently open and accruing are identified and reviewed.ConclusionsThe potential promise of MR-guided RT for PAC is highlighted, the challenges associated with this novel therapeutic intervention are also reviewed. Outcomes are very early, and will require continued and long term follow up. MR-guided RT should not be viewed in the same fashion as a novel chemotherapeutic agent for which dosing, administration, and toxicity has been established in earlier phase studies. Instead, it should be viewed as a novel procedural intervention which must be robustly tested, refined and practiced before definitive conclusions on the potential benefits or detriments can be determined. The future of MR-guided RT for PAC is highly promising and the potential implications on PAC are substantial.

Project description:There is growing evidence supporting incorporating multiparametric (mp) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans into risk stratification, active surveillance, and treatment paradigms for prostate cancer. The purpose of our study was to determine whether demographic disparities exist in staging MRI utilization for prostate cancer patients.An institutional database of 705 nonmetastatic prostate cancer patients treated with radiation therapy from 2005 through 2013 was used to identify patients undergoing versus not undergoing pretreatment diagnostic prostate mpMRI. Uni- and multivariable logistic regression evaluated the relationship of clinical and demographic characteristics with MRI utilization.All demographic variables assessed, except the other race category, were significantly associated with MRI utilization (all P < .05), including age (odds ratio [OR], 0.92), black race (OR, 0.51), poverty (OR, 0.53), closer distance to radiation facility (OR, 1.79), and nonprivate primary insurance (OR, 0.57) on univariable analysis, while clinical stage T3 (OR, 3.37) was the only clinical characteristic. On multivariable analysis stratified by D'Amico risk group, age remained significant across all risk groups, whereas the black versus white racial (OR, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.55) and nonprivate versus private insurance type (OR, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.86) disparities persisted in the low-risk group. Clinical stage T3 remained associated in the high-risk group. For race specifically, the percentages of whites, blacks, and others undergoing MRI in the overall cohort and by risk group were, respectively: overall, 80% (343/427), 68% (156/231), and 85% (40/47); low risk, 86%, 56%, and 63%; intermediate risk, 79%, 72%, and 95%; and high risk, 72%, 72%, and 100%.In this urban, academic center cohort, older patients across all risk groups and black or nonprivate insurance patients in the low risk group were less likely to undergo staging prostate MRI scans. Further research should investigate these differences to ensure equitable utilization across all demographic groups considering the burden of prostate cancer disparities.