1. Dosimetric effects of adaptive prostate cancer radiotherapy in an MR-linac workflow
- Author
-
Christian Jamtheim Gustafsson, Annika Mannerberg, Sofie Ceberg, Lars E. Olsson, Joakim Jonsson, Emilia Persson, and Adalsteinn Gunnlaugsson
- Subjects
Male ,Organs at Risk ,lcsh:Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine ,medicine.medical_treatment ,lcsh:R895-920 ,Urinary Bladder ,Dose distribution ,MR-linac ,lcsh:RC254-282 ,Prostate radiotherapy ,Workflow ,030218 nuclear medicine & medical imaging ,03 medical and health sciences ,Prostate cancer ,0302 clinical medicine ,Humans ,Medicine ,Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging ,Motion induced dose effects ,Cancer och onkologi ,Mr linac ,medicine.diagnostic_test ,business.industry ,Research ,Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted ,Significant difference ,Rectum ,Intrafractional motion ,Prostatic Neoplasms ,Radiotherapy Dosage ,Magnetic resonance imaging ,medicine.disease ,lcsh:Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens ,Magnetic Resonance Imaging ,Radiation therapy ,Oncology ,Cancer and Oncology ,030220 oncology & carcinogenesis ,Bladder volume ,Dose reduction ,Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated ,Radiologi och bildbehandling ,Particle Accelerators ,business ,Nuclear medicine ,Radiotherapy, Image-Guided ,Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging - Abstract
Background The purpose was to evaluate the dosimetric effects in prostate cancer treatment caused by anatomical changes occurring during the time frame of adaptive replanning in a magnetic resonance linear accelerator (MR-linac) workflow. Methods Two MR images (MR1 and MR2) were acquired with 30 min apart for each of the 35 patients enrolled in this study. The clinical target volume (CTV) and organs at risk (OARs) were delineated based on MR1. Using a synthetic CT (sCT), ultra-hypofractionated VMAT treatment plans were created for MR1, with three different planning target volume (PTV) margins of 7 mm, 5 mm and 3 mm. The three treatment plans of MR1, were recalculated onto MR2 using its corresponding sCT. The dose distribution of MR2 represented delivered dose to the patient after 30 min of adaptive replanning, omitting motion correction before beam on. MR2 was registered to MR1, using deformable registration. Using the inverse deformation, the structures of MR1 was deformed to fit MR2 and anatomical changes were quantified. For dose distribution comparison the dose distribution of MR2 was warped to the geometry MR1. Results The mean center of mass vector offset for the CTV was 1.92 mm [0.13 – 9.79 mm]. Bladder volume increase ranged from 12.4 to 133.0% and rectum volume difference varied between −10.9 and 38.8%. Using the conventional 7 mm planning target volume (PTV) margin the dose reduction to the CTV was 1.1%. Corresponding values for 5 mm and 3 mm PTV margin were 2.0% and 4.2% respectively. The dose to the PTV and OARs also decreased from D1 to D2, for all PTV margins evaluated. Statistically significant difference was found for CTV Dmin between D1 and D2 for the 3 mm PTV margin (p Conclusions A target underdosage caused by anatomical changes occurring during the reported time frame for adaptive replanning MR-linac workflows was found. Volume changes in both bladder and rectum caused large prostate displacements. This indicates the importance of thorough position verification before treatment delivery and that the workflow needs to speed up before introducing margin reduction.
- Published
- 2020