Dataset Information

Evaluation of plan quality in radiotherapy planning with an MR-linac.

ABSTRACT:

Background & purpose

Clinical introduction of magnetic resonance (MR)-guided radiotherapy involves treatment planning while taking into account machine-specific characteristics. Our aim was to investigate the feasibility of high-quality MR-linac treatment planning for an MR-linac and to benchmark MR-linac plan quality (IMRT) against current clinical practice (VMAT).

Materials & methods

Data of eight rectal and eight prostate cancer patients, who received radiotherapy on a conventional CBCT-integrated linac, were selected. Clinically acquired CTs and associated delineations of target volumes and organs-at-risk (OARs) were used for MR-linac treatment planning in Monaco. To investigate treatment planning software bias 'quasi MR-linac plans' were generated in Pinnacle³ by mimicking MR-linac specific beam characteristics. MR-linac, quasi MR-linac, and clinical plans were compared and differences in target and OAR doses assessed. Differences in plan complexity were determined by the number of segments and monitor units.

Results

Compared to clinical plans, MR-linac plans showed a statistically significant decrease in plan homogeneity, an increase in PTV D_mean (prostate: 0.6?Gy; rectum: 0.8?Gy) and D_1% (prostate: 1.9?Gy; rectum: 2.0?Gy), and increases in OAR dose. Quasi MR-linac plans were comparable to MR-linac plans with respect to OAR dose and plan homogeneity. For rectal cancer an increase was seen in PTV D_mean (0.12?Gy) and D_1% (0.5?Gy) compared to regular MR-linac plans. All created plans were clinically equivalent to current clinical practice.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates the feasibility of creating high-quality MR-linac treatment plans. The results supported the clinical introduction of an MR-linac.

SUBMITTER: van de Schoot AJAJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7807609 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of plan quality in radiotherapy planning with an MR-linac.

van de Schoot Agustinus J A J AJAJ van den Wollenberg Wouter W Carbaat Casper C de Ruiter Peter P Nowee Marlies E ME Pos Floris F van Triest Baukelien B Sonke Jan-Jakob JJ Janssen Tomas M TM

Physics and imaging in radiation oncology 20190424

<h4>Background & purpose</h4>Clinical introduction of magnetic resonance (MR)-guided radiotherapy involves treatment planning while taking into account machine-specific characteristics. Our aim was to investigate the feasibility of high-quality MR-linac treatment planning for an MR-linac and to benchmark MR-linac plan quality (IMRT) against current clinical practice (VMAT).<h4>Materials & methods</h4>Data of eight rectal and eight prostate cancer patients, who received radiotherapy on a conventi ...[more]

PMID: 33458263

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeA hybrid magnetic resonance linear accelerator (MRL) can perform magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with high soft-tissue contrast to be used for online adaptive radiotherapy (oART). To obtain electron densities needed for the oART dose calculation, a computed tomography (CT) is often deformably registered to MRI. Our aim was to evaluate an MRI-only based synthetic CT (sCT) generation as an alternative to the deformed CT (dCT)-based oART in the abdominal region.MethodsThe study data consisted of 57 patients who were treated on a 0.35 T MRL system mainly for abdominal tumors. Simulation MRI-CT pairs of 43 patients were used for training and validation of a prototype convolutional neural network sCT-generation algorithm, based on HighRes3DNet, for the abdominal region. For remaining test patients, sCT images were produced from simulation MRIs and daily MRIs. The dCT-based plans were re-calculated on sCT with identical calculation parameters. The sCT and dCT were compared in terms of geometric agreement and calculated dose.ResultsThe mean and one standard deviation of the geometric agreement metrics over dCT-sCT-pairs were: mean error of 8 ± 10 HU, mean absolute error of 49 ± 10 HU, and Dice similarity coefficient of 55 ± 12%, 60 ± 5%, and 82 ± 15% for bone, fat, and lung tissues, respectively. The dose differences between the sCT and dCT-based dose for planning target volumes were 0.5 ± 0.9%, 0.6 ± 0.8%, and 0.5 ± 0.8% at D2% , D50% , and D98% in physical dose and 0.8 ± 1.4%, 0.8 ± 1.2%, and 0.6 ± 1.1% in biologically effective dose (BED). For organs-at-risk, the dose differences of all evaluated dose-volume histogram points were within [-4.5%, 7.8%] and [-1.1 Gy, 3.5 Gy] in both physical dose and BED.ConclusionsThe geometric agreement metrics were within typically reported values and most average relative dose differences were within 1%. Thus, an MRI-only sCT-based approach is a promising alternative to the current clinical practice of the abdominal oART on MRL.

Project description:PurposeAdaptive stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer (PC) by the 1.5 T MR-linac currently requires online planning by an expert user. A fully automated and user-independent solution to adaptive planning (mCycle) of PC-SBRT was compared with user's plans for the 1.5 T MR-linac.Methods and materialsFifty adapted plans on daily magnetic resonance imaging scans for 10 patients with PC treated by 35 Gy (prescription dose [Dp]) in 5 fractions were reoptimized offline from scratch, both by an expert planner (manual) and by mCycle. Manual plans consisted of multicriterial optimization (MCO) of the fluence map plus manual tweaking in segmentation, whereas in mCycle plans, the objectives were sequentially optimized by MCO according to an a-priori assigned priority list. The main criteria for planning approval were a dose ≥95% of the Dp to at least 95% of the planning target volume (PTV), V33.2 (PTV) ≥ 95%, a dose less than the Dp to the hottest cubic centimeter (V35 ≤ 1 cm3) of rectum, bladder, penile bulb, and urethral planning risk volume (ie, urethra plus 3 mm isotropically), and V32 ≤ 5%, V28 ≤ 10%, and V18 ≤ 35% to the rectum. Such dose-volume metrics, plus some efficiency and deliverability metrics, were used for the comparison of mCycle versus manual plans.ResultsmCycle plans improved target dose coverage, with V33.2 (PTV) passing on average (±1 SD) from 95.7% (±1.0%) for manual plans to 97.5% (±1.3%) for mCycle plans (P < .001), and rectal dose sparing, with significantly reduced V32, V28, and V18 (P ≤ .004). Although at an equivalent number of segments, mCycle plans consumed moderately more monitor units (+17%) and delivery time (+9%) (P < .001), whereas they were generally faster (-19%) in terms of optimization times (P < .019). No significant differences were found for the passing rates of locally normalized γ (3 mm, 3%) (P = .059) and γ (2 mm, 2%) (P = .432) deliverability metrics.ConclusionsIn the offline setting, mCycle proved to be a trustable solution for automated planning of PC-SBRT on the 1.5 T MR-linac. mCycle integration in the online workflow will free the user from the challenging online-optimization task.

Project description:PurposeAdaptive radiation therapy (ART) on the integrated Elekta Unity magnetic resonance (MR)-linac requires routine quality assurance to verify delivery accuracy and system data transfer. In this work, our objective was to develop and validate a novel automated end-to-end test suite that verifies data transfer between multiple software platforms and quantifies the performance of multiple machine subcomponents critical to the ART process.MethodsWe designed and implemented a software tool to quantify the MR and megavoltage (MV) isocenter coincidence, treatment couch positioning consistency, isocenter shift accuracy for the adapted plan as well as the MLC and jaw position accuracy following the beam aperture adaptation. Our tool employs a reference treatment plan with a simulated isocenter shift generated on an MR image of a readily available phantom with MR and MV visible fiducials. Execution of the test occurs within the standard adapt-to-position (ATP) clinical workflow with MV images collected of the delivered treatment fields. Using descriptive statistics, we quantified uncertainty in couch positioning, isocentre shift as well as the jaw and MLC positions of the adapted fields. We also executed sensitivity measurements to evaluate the detection algorithm's performance.ResultsWe report the results of 301 daily testing instances. We demonstrated consistent tracking of the MR-to-MV alignment with respect to the established value and to detect small changes on the order of 0.2 mm following machine service events. We found couch position consistency relative to the test baseline value was within 95% CI [-0.31, 0.26 mm]. For phantom shifts that form the basis for the plan adaptation, we found agreement between MV-image-detected phantom shift and online image registration, within ± 1.5 mm in all directions with a 95% CI difference of [-1.29, 0.79 mm]. For beam aperture adaptation accuracy, we found differences between the planned and detected jaw positions had a mean value of 0.27 mm and 95% CI of [-0.29, 0.82 mm] and -0.17 mm and 95% CI of [-0.37, 0.05 mm] for the MLC positions. Automated fiducial detected accuracy was within 0.08 ± 0.20 mm of manual localization. Introduced jaw and MLC position errors (1-10 mm) were detected within 0.55 mm (within 1 mm for 15/256 instances for the jaws). Phantom shifts (1.3 or 5 mm in each cardinal direction) from a reference position were detected within 0.26 mm.ConclusionsWe have demonstrated the accuracy and sensitivity of a daily end-to-end test suite capable of detecting errors in multiple machine subcomponents including system data transfer. Our test suite evaluates the entire treatment workflow and has captured system communication issues prior to patient treatment. With automated processing and the use of a standard vendor-provided phantom, it is possible to expand to other Unity sites.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of plan quality in radiotherapy planning with an MR-linac.

Background & purpose

Materials & methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Evaluation of plan quality in radiotherapy planning with an MR-linac.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets