Old dogs, new tricks: MR-Linac training and credentialing of radiation oncologists, radiation therapists and medical physicists.

The introduction of magnetic resonance (MR) linear accelerators (MR-Linacs) into radiotherapy departments has increased in recent years owing to its unique advantages including the ability to deliver online adaptive radiotherapy. However, most radiation oncology professionals are not accustomed to working with MR technology. The integration of an MR-Linac into routine practice requires many considerations including MR safety, MR image acquisition and optimisation, image interpretation and adaptive radiotherapy strategies. This article provides an overview of training and credentialing requirements for radiation oncology professionals to develop competency and efficiency in delivering treatment safely on an MR-Linac.

Introduction of radiation therapist-led adaptive treatments on a 1.5 T MR-Linac.

The introduction of magnetic resonance (MR) linear accelerators (MR-Linac) marks the beginning of a new era in radiotherapy. MR-Linac systems are currently being operated by teams of radiation therapists (RTs), radiation oncology medical physicists (ROMPs) and radiation oncologists (ROs) due to the diverse and complex tasks required to deliver treatment. This is resource-intensive and logistically challenging. RT-led service delivery at the treatment console is paramount to simplify the process and make the best use of this technology for suitable patients with commonly treated anatomical sites. This article will discuss the experiences of our department in developing and implementing an RT-led workflow on the 1.5 T MR-Linac.

Early experience with MR-guided adaptive radiotherapy using a 1.5 T MR-Linac: First 6 months of operation using adapt to shape workflow.

INTRODUCTION: The magnetic resonance linear accelerator (MRL) offers improved soft tissue visualization to guide daily adaptive radiotherapy treatment. This manuscript aims to report initial experience using a 1.5 T MRL in the first 6 months of operation, including training, workflows, timings and dosimetric accuracy. METHODS: All staff received training in MRI safety and MRL workflows. Initial sites chosen for treatment were stereotactic and hypofractionated prostate, thoraco-abdomino-pelvic metastasis, prostate bed and bladder. The Adapt To Shape (ATS) workflow was chosen to be the focus of treatment as it is the most robust solution for daily adaptive radiotherapy. A workflow was created addressing patient suitability, simulation, planning, treatment and peer review. Treatment times were recorded breaking down into the various stages of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 37 patients were treated and 317 fractions delivered (of which 313 were delivered using an ATS workflow) in our initial 6 months. Average treatment times over the entire period were 50 and 38 min for stereotactic and non-stereotactic treatments respectively. Average treatment times reduced each month. The average difference between reference planned and ionization chamber measured dose was 0.0 ± 1.4%. CONCLUSION: The MRL was successfully established in an Australian setting. A focus on training and creating a detailed workflow from patient selection, review and treatment are paramount to establishing new treatment programmes.

Mean heart dose variation over a course of breath-holding breast cancer radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the work was to estimate the dose received by the heart throughout a course of breath-holding breast radiotherapy. METHODS: 113 cone-beam CT (CBCT) scans were acquired for 20 patients treated within the HeartSpare 1A study, in which both an active breathing control (ABC) device and a voluntary breath-hold (VBH) method were used. Predicted mean heart doses were obtained from treatment plans. CBCT scans were imported into a treatment planning system, heart outlines defined, images registered to the CT planning scan and mean heart dose recorded. Two observers outlined two cases three times each to assess interobserver and intraobserver variation. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between ABC and VBH heart dose data from CT planning scans, or in the CBCT-based estimates of heart dose, and no effect from the order of the breath-hold method. Variation in mean heart dose per fraction over the three imaged fractions was <6 cGy without setup correction, decreasing to 3.3 cGy with setup correction. If scaled to 15 fractions, all differences between predicted and estimated mean heart doses were <0.5 Gy and in 80% of cases, they were <0.25 Gy. CONCLUSION: Variation in mean heart dose was at an acceptable level over the duration of breath-holding radiotherapy and was well predicted by the planning system. Advances in knowledge: Mean heart dose was not adversely affected by fraction-to-fraction variations throughout a course of heart-sparing radiotherapy using two well-established breath-holding methods.