ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is an established ablative treatment for liver tumors with excellent local control rates. Magnetic resonance imaging guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) provides superior soft tissue contrast and may therefore facilitate a marker-less liver SBRT workflow. The goal of the present study was to investigate feasibility, workflow parameters, toxicity and patient acceptance of MRgSBRT on a 1.5 T MR-Linac. METHODS: Ten consecutive patients with liver metastases treated on a 1.5 T MR-Linac were included in this prospective trial. Tumor delineation was performed on four-dimensional computed tomography scans and both exhale triggered and free-breathing T2 MRI scans from the MR-Linac. An internal target volume based approach was applied. Organ at risk constraints were based on the UKSABR guidelines (Version 6.1). Patient acceptance regarding device specific aspects was assessed and toxicity was scored according to the common toxicity criteria of adverse events, version 5. RESULTS: Nine of ten tumors were clearly visible on the 1.5 T MR-Linac. No patient had fiducial markers placed for treatment. All patients were treated with three or five fractions. Median dose to 98% of the gross tumor volume was 38.5 Gy. The median time from "patient identity check" until "beam-off" was 31 min. Median beam on time was 9.6 min. Online MRgRT was well accepted in general and no treatment had to be interrupted on patient request. No event of symptomatic radiation induced liver disease was observed after a median follow-up of ten month (range 3-17 months). CONCLUSION: Our early experience suggests that online 1.5 T MRgSBRT of liver metastases represents a promising new non-invasive marker-free treatment modality based on high image quality, clinically reasonable in-room times and high patient acceptance. Further studies are necessary to assess clinical outcome, to validate advanced motion management and to explore the benefit of online response adaptive liver SBRT.
ABSTRACT
This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdrawal). This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief, Professor Hugh Hemmings, based on the recommendations of Justus-Liebig-University Giessen following an internal review of research conducted by Joachim Boldt at the University. This is further described in 'Further Retractions of Articles by Joachim Boldt', https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2020.02.024.
ABSTRACT
This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdrawal). This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief, Professor Hugh Hemmings, based on the recommendations of Justus-Liebig-University Giessen following an internal review of research conducted by Joachim Boldt at the University. This is further described in 'Further Retractions of Articles by Joachim Boldt', https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2020.02.024.
