RESUMEN
Introduction: Advancements in MRI-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) enable clinical parallel workflows (CPW) for online adaptive planning (oART), allowing medical physicists (MPs), physicians (MDs), and radiation therapists (RTTs) to perform their tasks simultaneously. This study evaluates the impact of this upgrade on the total treatment time by analyzing each step of the current 0.35T-MRgRT workflow. Methods: The time process of the workflow steps for 254 treatment fractions in 0.35 MRgRT was examined. Patients have been grouped based on disease site, breathing modality (BM) (BHI or FB), and fractionation (stereotactic body RT [SBRT] or standard fractionated long course [LC]). The time spent for the following workflow steps in Adaptive Treatment (ADP) was analyzed: Patient Setup Time (PSt), MRI Acquisition and Matching (MRt), MR Re-contouring Time (RCt), Re-Planning Time (RPt), Treatment Delivery Time (TDt). Also analyzed was the timing of treatments that followed a Simple workflow (SMP), without the online re-planning (PSt + MRt + TDt.). Results: The time analysis revealed that the ADP workflow (median: 34 min) is significantly (p < 0.05) longer than the SMP workflow (19 min). The time required for ADP treatments is significantly influenced by TDt, constituting 40 % of the total time. The oART steps (RCt + RPt) took 11 min (median), representing 27 % of the entire procedure. Overall, 79.2 % of oART fractions were completed in less than 45 min, and 30.6 % were completed in less than 30 min. Conclusion: This preliminary analysis, along with the comparative assessment against existing literature, underscores the potential of CPW to diminish the overall treatment duration in MRgRT-oART. Additionally, it suggests the potential for CPW to promote a more integrated multidisciplinary approach in the execution of oART.
RESUMEN
Introduction: Organ motion (OM) and volumetric changes pose challenges in radiotherapy (RT) for locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC). Magnetic Resonance-guided Radiotherapy (MRgRT) combines improved MRI contrast with adaptive RT plans for daily anatomical changes. Our goal was to analyze cervico-uterine structure (CUS) changes during RT to develop strategies for managing OM. Materials and methods: LACC patients received chemoradiation by MRIdian system with a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) protocol. Prescription doses of 55-50.6 Gy at PTV1 and 45-39.6 Gy at PTV2 were given in 22 and 25 fractions. Daily MRI scans were co-registered with planning scans and CUS changes were assessed.Six PTVs were created by adding 0.5, 0.7, 1, 1.3, 1.5, and 2 cm margins to the CUS, based on the simulation MRI. Adequate margins were determined to include 95 % of the CUSs throughout the entire treatment in 95 % of patients. Results: Analysis of 15 LACC patients and 372 MR scans showed a 31 % median CUS volume decrease. Asymmetric margins of 2 cm cranially, 0.5 cm caudally, 1.5 cm posteriorly, 2 cm anteriorly, and 1.5 cm on both sides were optimal for PTV, adapting to CUS variations. Post-14th fraction, smaller margins of 0.7 cm cranially, 0.5 cm caudally, 1.3 cm posteriorly, 1.3 cm anteriorly, and 1.3 cm on both sides sufficed. Conclusion: CUS mobility varies during RT, suggesting reduced PTV margins after the third week. MRgRT with adaptive strategies optimizes dose delivery, emphasizing the importance of streamlined IGRT with reduced PTV margins using a tailored MRgRT workflow with hybrid MRI-guided systems.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: In radiotherapy it is often necessary to transfer a patient's DICOM (Digital Imaging and COmmunications in Medicine) dataset from one system to another for re-treatment, plan-summation or registration purposes. The aim of the study is to evaluate effects of dataset transfer between treatment planning systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients treated in a 0.35T MR-Linac (MRidian, ViewRay) for locally-advanced pancreatic cancer were enrolled. For each patient, a nominal dose distribution was optimized on the planning MRI. Each plan was daily re-optimized if needed to match the anatomy and exported from MRIdian-TPS (ViewRay Inc.) to Eclipse-TPS (Siemens-Varian). A comparison between the two TPSs was performed considering the PTV and OARs volumes (cc), as well as dose coverages and clinical constraints. RESULTS: From the twenty-five enrolled patients, 139 plans were included in the data comparison. The median values of percentage PTV volume variation are 10.8 % for each fraction, while percentage differences of PTV coverage have a mean value of -1.4 %. The median values of the percentage OARs volume variation are 16.0 %, 7.0 %, 10.4 % and 8.5 % for duodenum, stomach, small and large bowel, respectively. The percentage variations of the dose constraints are 41.0 %, 52.7 % and 49.8 % for duodenum, stomach and small bowel, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study has demonstrated a non-negligible variation in size and dosimetric parameters when datasets are transferred between TPSs. Such variations should be clinically considered. Investigations are focused on DICOM structure algorithm employed by the TPSs during the transfer to understand the cause of such variations.