Evaluating contouring accuracy and dosimetry impact of current MRI-guided adaptive radiation therapy for brain metastases: a retrospective study.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) guided adaptive radiotherapy (MRgART) has gained increasing attention, showing clinical advantages over conventional radiotherapy. However, there are concerns regarding online target delineation and modification accuracy. In our study, we aimed to investigate the accuracy of brain metastases (BMs) contouring and its impact on dosimetry in 1.5 T MRI-guided online adaptive fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT). METHODS: Eighteen patients with 64 BMs were retrospectively evaluated. Pre-treatment 3.0 T MRI scans (gadolinium contrast-enhanced T1w, T1c) and initial 1.5 T MR-Linac scans (non-enhanced online-T1, T2, and FLAIR) were used for gross target volume (GTV) contouring. Five radiation oncologists independently contoured GTVs on pre-treatment T1c and initial online-T1, T2, and FLAIR images. We assessed intra-observer and inter-observer variations and analysed the dosimetry impact through treatment planning based on GTVs generated by online MRI, simulating the current online adaptive radiotherapy practice. RESULTS: The average Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) for inter-observer comparison were 0.79, 0.54, 0.59, and 0.64 for pre-treatment T1c, online-T1, T2, and FLAIR, respectively. Inter-observer variations were significantly smaller for the 3.0 T pre-treatment T1c than for the contrast-free online 1.5 T MR scans (P < 0.001). Compared to the T1c contours, the average DSC index of intra-observer contouring was 0.52‒0.55 for online MRIs. For BMs larger than 3 cm3, visible on all image sets, the average DSC indices were 0.69, 0.71 and 0.64 for online-T1, T2, and FLAIR, respectively, compared to the pre-treatment T1c contour. For BMs < 3 cm3, the average visibility rates were 22.3%, 41.3%, and 51.8% for online-T1, T2, and FLAIR, respectively. Simulated adaptive planning showed an average prescription dose coverage of 63.4‒66.9% when evaluated by ground truth planning target volumes (PTVs) generated on pre-treatment T1c, reducing it from over 99% coverage by PTVs generated on online MRIs. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of online target contouring was unsatisfactory for the current MRI-guided online adaptive FSRT. Small lesions had poor visibility on 1.5 T non-contrast-enhanced MR-Linac images. Contour inaccuracies caused a one-third drop in prescription dose coverage for the target volume. Future studies should explore the feasibility of contrast agent administration during daily treatment in MRI-guided online adaptive FSRT procedures.