The future of MRI in radiation therapy: Challenges and opportunities for the MR community.

Radiation therapy is a major component of cancer treatment pathways worldwide. The main aim of this treatment is to achieve tumor control through the delivery of ionizing radiation while preserving healthy tissues for minimal radiation toxicity. Because radiation therapy relies on accurate localization of the target and surrounding tissues, imaging plays a crucial role throughout the treatment chain. In the treatment planning phase, radiological images are essential for defining target volumes and organs-at-risk, as well as providing elemental composition (e.g., electron density) information for radiation dose calculations. At treatment, onboard imaging informs patient setup and could be used to guide radiation dose placement for sites affected by motion. Imaging is also an important tool for treatment response assessment and treatment plan adaptation. MRI, with its excellent soft tissue contrast and capacity to probe functional tissue properties, holds great untapped potential for transforming treatment paradigms in radiation therapy. The MR in Radiation Therapy ISMRM Study Group was established to provide a forum within the MR community to discuss the unmet needs and fuel opportunities for further advancement of MRI for radiation therapy applications. During the summer of 2021, the study group organized its first virtual workshop, attended by a diverse international group of clinicians, scientists, and clinical physicists, to explore our predictions for the future of MRI in radiation therapy for the next 25 years. This article reviews the main findings from the event and considers the opportunities and challenges of reaching our vision for the future in this expanding field.

Removing rician bias in diffusional kurtosis of the prostate using real-data reconstruction.

PURPOSE: To compare prostate diffusional kurtosis imaging (DKI) metrics generated using phase-corrected real data with those generated using magnitude data with and without noise compensation (NC). METHODS: Diffusion-weighted images were acquired at 3T in 16 prostate cancer patients, measuring 6 b-values (0-1500 s/mm2 ), each acquired with 6 signal averages along 3 diffusion directions, with noise-only images acquired to allow NC. In addition to conventional magnitude averaging, phase-corrected real data were averaged in an attempt to reduce rician noise-bias, with a range of phase-correction low-pass filter (LPF) sizes (8-128 pixels) tested. Each method was also tested using simulations. Pixelwise maps of apparent diffusion (D) and apparent kurtosis (K) were calculated for magnitude data with and without NC and phase-corrected real data. Average values were compared in tumor, normal transition zone (NTZ), and normal peripheral zone (NPZ). RESULTS: Simulations indicated LPF size can strongly affect K metrics, where 64-pixel LPFs produced accurate metrics. Relative to metrics estimated from magnitude data without NC, median NC K were lower (P < 0.0001) by 6/11/8% in tumor/NPZ/NTZ, 64-LPF real-data K were lower (P < 0.0001) by 4/10/7%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Compared with magnitude data with NC, phase-corrected real data can produce similar K, although the choice of phase-correction LPF should be chosen carefully.