Impact of attenuation correction of radiotherapy hardware for positron emission tomography-magnetic resonance in ano-rectal radiotherapy patients.

BACKGROUND: Positron Emission Tomography-Magnetic Resonance (PET-MR) scanners could improve ano-rectal radiotherapy planning through improved Gross Tumour Volume (GTV) delineation and enabling dose painting strategies using metabolic measurements. This requires accurate quantitative PET images acquired in the radiotherapy treatment position. PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the impact on GTV delineation and metabolic parameter measurement of using novel Attenuation Correction (AC) maps that included the radiotherapy flat couch, coil bridge and anterior coil to see if they were necessary. METHODS: Seventeen ano-rectal radiotherapy patients received a 18 F $\mathrm{^{18}F}$ -FluoroDeoxyGlucose PET-MR scan in the radiotherapy position. PET images were reconstructed without ( CTAC std $\mathrm{CTAC_{std}}$ ) and with ( CTAC cba $\mathrm{CTAC_{cba}}$ ) the radiotherapy hardware included. Both AC maps used the same Computed Tomography image for patient AC. Semi-manual and threshold GTVs were delineated on both PET images, the volumes compared and the Dice coefficient calculated. Metabolic parameters: Standardized Uptake Values SUV max $\mathrm{SUV_{max}}$ , SUV mean $\mathrm{SUV_{mean}}$ and Total Lesion Glycolysis (TLG) were compared using paired t-tests with a Bonferroni corrected significance level of p = 0.05 / 8 = 0.006 $p = 0.05/8 = 0.006$ . RESULTS: Differences in semi-manual GTV volumes between CTAC cba $\mathrm{CTAC_{cba}}$ and CTAC std $\mathrm{CTAC_{std}}$ were approaching statistical significance (difference - 15.9 % ± 1.6 % $-15.9\%\pm 1.6\%$ , p = 0.007 $p = 0.007$ ), with larger differences in low FDG-avid tumours ( SUV mean < 8.5 g mL - 1 $\mathrm{SUV_{mean}} < 8.5\;\mathrm{g\: mL^{-1}}$ ). The CTAC cba $\mathrm{CTAC_{cba}}$ and CTAC std $\mathrm{CTAC_{std}}$ GTVs were concordant with Dice coefficients 0.89 ± 0.01 $0.89 \pm 0.01$ (manual) and 0.98 ± 0.00 $0.98 \pm 0.00$ (threshold). Metabolic parameters were significantly different, with SUV max $\mathrm{SUV_{max}}$ , SUV mean $\mathrm{SUV_{mean}}$ and TLG differences of - 11.5 % ± 0.3 % $-11.5\%\ \pm 0.3\%$ ( p < 0.001 $p < 0.001$ ), - 11.6 % ± 0.3 % $-11.6\% \pm 0.3\%$ ( p < 0.001 $p < 0.001$ ) and - 13.7 % ± 0.6 % $-13.7\%\ \pm 0.6\%$ ( p = 0.003 $p = 0.003$ ) respectively. The TLG difference resulted in 1/8 rectal cancer patients changing prognosis group, based on literature TLG cut-offs, when using CTAC cba $\mathrm{CTAC_{cba}}$ rather than CTAC std $\mathrm{CTAC_{std}}$ . CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that using AC maps with the radiotherapy hardware included is feasible for patient imaging. The impact on tumour delineation was mixed and needs to be evaluated in larger cohorts. However using AC of the radiotherapy hardware is important for situations where accurate metabolic measurements are required, such as dose painting and treatment prognostication.

The benefit of MR-only radiotherapy treatment planning for anal and rectal cancers: A planning study.

INTRODUCTION: Limited evidence exists showing the benefit of magnetic resonance (MR)-only radiotherapy treatment planning for anal and rectal cancers. This study aims to assess the impact of MR-only planning on target volumes (TVs) and treatment plan doses to organs at risks (OARs) for anal and rectal cancers versus a computed tomography (CT)-only pathway. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-six patients (29 rectum and 17 anus) undergoing preoperative or radical external beam radiotherapy received CT and T2 MR simulation. TV and OARs were delineated on CT and MR, and volumetric arc therapy treatment plans were optimized independently (53.2 Gy/28 fractions for anus, 45 Gy/25 fractions for rectum). Further treatment plans assessed gross tumor volume (GTV) dose escalation. Differences in TV volumes and OAR doses, in terms of Vx Gy (organ volume (%) receiving x dose (Gy)), were assessed. RESULTS: MR GTV and primary planning TV (PTV) volumes systematically reduced by 13 cc and 98 cc (anus) and 44 cc and 109 cc (rectum) respectively compared to CT volumes. Statistically significant OAR dose reductions versus CT were found for bladder and uterus (rectum) and bladder, penile bulb, and genitalia (anus). With GTV boosting, statistically significant dose reductions were found for sigmoid, small bowel, vagina, and penile bulb (rectum) and vagina (anus). CONCLUSION: Our findings provide evidence that the introduction of MR (whether through MR-only or CT-MR pathways) to radiotherapy treatment planning for anal and rectal cancers has the potential to improve treatments. MR-related OAR dose reductions may translate into less treatment-related toxicity for patients or greater ability to dose escalate.

Evaluating a radiotherapy deep learning synthetic CT algorithm for PET-MR attenuation correction in the pelvis.

BACKGROUND: Positron emission tomography-magnetic resonance (PET-MR) attenuation correction is challenging because the MR signal does not represent tissue density and conventional MR sequences cannot image bone. A novel zero echo time (ZTE) MR sequence has been previously developed which generates signal from cortical bone with images acquired in 65 s. This has been combined with a deep learning model to generate a synthetic computed tomography (sCT) for MR-only radiotherapy. This study aimed to evaluate this algorithm for PET-MR attenuation correction in the pelvis. METHODS: Ten patients being treated with ano-rectal radiotherapy received a [Formula: see text]F-FDG-PET-MR in the radiotherapy position. Attenuation maps were generated from ZTE-based sCT (sCTAC) and the standard vendor-supplied MRAC. The radiotherapy planning CT scan was rigidly registered and cropped to generate a gold standard attenuation map (CTAC). PET images were reconstructed using each attenuation map and compared for standard uptake value (SUV) measurement, automatic thresholded gross tumour volume (GTV) delineation and GTV metabolic parameter measurement. The last was assessed for clinical equivalence to CTAC using two one-sided paired t tests with a significance level corrected for multiple testing of [Formula: see text]. Equivalence margins of [Formula: see text] were used. RESULTS: Mean whole-image SUV differences were -0.02% (sCTAC) compared to -3.0% (MRAC), with larger differences in the bone regions (-0.5% to -16.3%). There was no difference in thresholded GTVs, with Dice similarity coefficients [Formula: see text]. However, there were larger differences in GTV metabolic parameters. Mean differences to CTAC in [Formula: see text] were [Formula: see text] (± standard error, sCTAC) and [Formula: see text] (MRAC), and [Formula: see text] (sCTAC) and [Formula: see text] (MRAC) in [Formula: see text]. The sCTAC was statistically equivalent to CTAC within a [Formula: see text] equivalence margin for [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] ([Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text]), whereas the MRAC was not ([Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text]). CONCLUSION: Attenuation correction using this radiotherapy ZTE-based sCT algorithm was substantially more accurate than current MRAC methods with only a 40 s increase in MR acquisition time. This did not impact tumour delineation but did significantly improve the accuracy of whole-image and tumour SUV measurements, which were clinically equivalent to CTAC. This suggests PET images reconstructed with sCTAC would enable accurate quantitative PET images to be acquired on a PET-MR scanner.

Comprehensive dose evaluation of a Deep Learning based synthetic Computed Tomography algorithm for pelvic Magnetic Resonance-only radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Magnetic Resonance (MR)-only radiotherapy enables the use of MR without the uncertainty of MR-Computed Tomography (CT) registration. This requires a synthetic CT (sCT) for dose calculations, which can be facilitated by a novel Zero Echo Time (ZTE) sequence where bones are visible and images are acquired in 65 seconds. This study evaluated the dose calculation accuracy for pelvic sites of a ZTE-based Deep Learning sCT algorithm developed by GE Healthcare. MATERIALS AND METHODS: ZTE and CT images were acquired in 56 pelvic radiotherapy patients in the radiotherapy position. A 2D U-net convolutional neural network was trained using pairs of deformably registered CT and ZTE images from 36 patients. In the remaining 20 patients the dosimetric accuracy of the sCT was assessed using cylindrical dummy Planning Target Volumes (PTVs) positioned at four different central axial locations, as well as the clinical treatment plans (for prostate (n = 10), rectum (n = 4) and anus (n = 6) cancers). The sCT was rigidly and deformably registered, the plan recalculated and the doses compared using mean differences and gamma analysis. RESULTS: Mean dose differences to the PTV D98% were ≤ 0.5% for all dummy PTVs and clinical plans (rigid registration). Mean gamma pass rates at 1%/1 mm were 98.0 ± 0.4% (rigid) and 100.0 ± 0.0% (deformable), 96.5 ± 0.8% and 99.8 ± 0.1%, and 95.4 ± 0.6% and 99.4 ± 0.4% for the clinical prostate, rectum and anus plans respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A ZTE-based sCT algorithm with high dose accuracy throughout the pelvis has been developed. This suggests the algorithm is sufficiently accurate for MR-only radiotherapy for all pelvic sites.

Developing quality assurance tests for simultaneous Positron Emission Tomography - Magnetic Resonance imaging for radiotherapy planning.

Background and purpose Simultaneous Positron Emission Tomography - Magnetic Resonance (PET-MR) imaging can potentially improve radiotherapy by enabling more accurate tumour delineation and dose painting. The use of PET-MR imaging for radiotherapy planning requires a comprehensive Quality Assurance (QA) programme to be developed. This study aimed to develop the QA tests required and assess their repeatability and stability. Materials and methods QA tests were developed for: MR image quality, MR geometric accuracy, electromechanical accuracy, PET-MR alignment accuracy, Diffusion Weighted (DW)-MR Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) accuracy and PET Standard Uptake Value (SUV) accuracy. Each test used a dedicated phantom and was analysed automatically or semi-automatically, with in-house software. Repeatability was evaluated by three same-day measurements with independent phantom positions. Stability was assessed through 12 monthly measurements. Results The repeatability Standard Deviations (SDs) of distortion for the MR geometric accuracy test were ⩽ 0.7 mm . The repeatability SDs in ADC difference from reference were ⩽ 3 % for the DW-MR accuracy test. The PET SUV difference from reference repeatability SD was 0.3 % . The stability SDs agreed within 0.6 mm , 1 percentage point and 1.4 percentage points of the repeatability SDs for the geometric, ADC and SUV accuracy tests respectively. There were no monthly trends apparent. These results were representative of the other tests. Conclusions QA Tests for radiotherapy planning PET-MR have been developed. The tests appeared repeatable and stable over a 12-month period. The developed QA tests could form the basis of a QA programme that enables high-quality, robust PET-MR imaging for radiotherapy planning.

Are cone beam CT image matching skills transferrable from planning CT to planning MRI for MR-only prostate radiotherapy?

OBJECTIVES: Treatment verification for MR-only planning has focused on fiducial marker matching, however, these are difficult to identify on MR. An alternative is using the MRI for soft-tissue matching with cone beam computed tomography images (MR-CBCT). However, therapeutic radiographers have limited experience of MRI. This study aimed to assess transferability of therapeutic radiographers CT-CBCT prostate image matching skills to MR-CBCT image matching. METHODS: 23 therapeutic radiographers with 3 months-5 years' experience of online daily CT-CBCT soft-tissue matching prostate cancer patients participated. Each observer completed a baseline assessment of 10 CT-CBCT prostate soft-tissue image matches, followed by 10 MR-CBCT prostate soft-tissue image match assessment. A MRI anatomy training intervention was delivered and the 10 MR-CBCT prostate soft-tissue image match assessment was repeated. Limits of agreement were calculated as the disagreement of the observers with mean of all observers. RESULTS: Limits of agreement at CT-CBCT baseline were 2.8 mm, 2.8 mm, 0.7 mm (vertical, longitudinal, lateral). MR-CBCT matches prior to training were 3.3 mm, 3.1 mm, 0.9 mm, and after training 2.6 mm, 2.4 mm, 1.1 mm (vertical, longitudinal, lateral). Results show similar limits of agreement across the assessments, and variation reduced following the training intervention. CONCLUSION: This suggests therapeutic radiographers' prostate CBCT image matching skills are transferrable to a MRI planning scan, since MR-CBCT matching has comparable observer variation to CT-CBCT matching. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This is the first publication assessing interobserver MR-CBCT prostate soft tissue matching in an MR-only pathway.

Evaluating the image quality of combined positron emission tomography-magnetic resonance images acquired in the pelvic radiotherapy position.

Positron emission tomography-magnetic resonance (PET-MR) scanners could improve radiotherapy planning through combining PET and MR functional imaging. This depends on acquiring high quality and quantitatively accurate images in the radiotherapy position. This study evaluated PET-MR image quality using a flat couch and coil bridge for pelvic radiotherapy. MR and PET image quality phantoms were imaged in three setups: phantom on the PET-MR couch with anterior coil on top (diagnostic), phantom on a flat couch with coil on top (couch), and phantom on the flat couch with coil on a coil bridge (radiotherapy). PET images were also acquired in each setup without the anterior coil. PET attenuation correction of the flat couch and coil bridge were generated using kilovoltage computed tomography (CT) images and of the anterior coil using megavoltage CT images. MR image quality was substantially affected, with MR signal to noise ratio (SNR) relative to the diagnostic setup of 89% ± 2% (mean ± standard error of the mean, couch) and 54% ± 1% (radiotherapy), likely due to the increased distance between the patient and receive coils. The reduction impacted the low-contrast detectability score: 23 ± 1 (diagnostic), 19.7 ± 0.3 (couch) and 15 ± 1 (radiotherapy). All other MR metrics agreed within one standard error. PET quantitative accuracy was also affected, with measured activity with anterior coil being different to diagnostic without anterior coil by -16.7% ± 0.2% (couch) and -17.7 ± 0.1% (radiotherapy), without attenuation correction modification. Including the couch and coil bridge attenuation correction reduced this difference to -7.5% ± 0.1%, and including the anterior coil reduced this to -2.7% ± 0.1%. This was better than the diagnostic setup with anterior coil (difference -8.3% ± 0.2%). This translated into greater PET SNR performance for the fully corrected radiotherapy setup compared to diagnostic with coil. However contrast recovery was unchanged by the modified attenuation correction, with the diagnostic setup remaining ∼2% better. Quantitative PET in the radiotherapy setup is possible if appropriate attenuation correction is used. Pelvic radiotherapy PET-MR imaging protocols will need to consider the impact on PET-MR image quality.

Cone beam computed tomography for dose calculation quality assurance for magnetic resonance-only radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Magnetic Resonance (MR)-only prostate radiotherapy using synthetic Computed Tomography (sCT) algorithms with high dose accuracy has been clinically implemented. MR images can suffer from geometric distortions so Quality Assurance (QA) using an independent, geometrically accurate, image could be required. The first-fraction Cone Beam CT (CBCT) has demonstrated potential but has not been evaluated in a clinical MR-only pathway. This study evaluated the clinical use of CBCT for dose accuracy QA of MR-only radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 49 patients treated with MR-only prostate radiotherapy were divided into two cohorts. Cohort 1 (20 patients) received a back-up CT, whilst Cohort 2 (29 patients) did not. All patients were planned using the sCT and received daily CBCT imaging with MR-CBCT soft-tissue matching. Each CBCT was calibrated using a patient-specific stepwise Hounsfield Units-to-mass density curve. The treatment plan was recalculated on the first-fraction CBCT using the clinically applied soft-tissue match and the doses compared. For Cohort 1 the sCT was rigidly registered to the back-up CT, the plan recalculated and doses compared. RESULTS: Mean sCT-CBCT dose difference across both cohorts was - 0.6 ± 0.1 % (standard error of the mean, range - 2.3 % , 2.3 % ), with 47/49 patients within [ - 2 % , 1 % ]. The sCT-CBCT dose difference was systematically lower than the sCT-CT by - 0.7 ± 0.6 % ( ± 95 % limits of agreement). The mean sCT-CBCT gamma pass rate ( 2 % / 2 mm ) was 96.1 ± 0.4 % ( 85.4 % , 99.7 % ). CONCLUSIONS: CBCT-based dose accuracy QA for MR-only radiotherapy appears clinically feasible. There was a small systematic sCT-CBCT dose difference implying asymmetric tolerances of [ - 2 % , 1 % ] would be appropriate.

Patient position verification in magnetic-resonance imaging only radiotherapy of anal and rectal cancers.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Magnetic resonance (MR)-only treatment pathways require either the MR-simulation or synthetic-computed tomography (sCT) as an alternative reference image for cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) patient position verification. This study assessed whether using T2 MR or sCT as CBCT reference images introduces systematic registration errors as compared to CT for anal and rectal cancers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 32 patients (18 rectum,14 anus) received pre-treatment CT- and T2 MR- simulation. Routine treatment CBCTs were acquired. sCTs were generated using a validated research model. The local clinical registration protocol, using a grey-scale registration algorithm, was performed for 216 CBCTs using CT, MR and sCT as the reference image. Linear mixed effects modelling identified systematic differences between modalities. RESULTS: Systematic translation and rotation differences to CT for MR were -0.3 to + 0.3 mm and -0.1 to 0.4° for anal cancers and -0.4 to 0.0 mm and 0.0 to 0.1° for rectal cancers, and for sCT were -0.4 to + 0.8 mm, -0.1 to 0.2° for anal cancers and -0.6 to + 0.2 mm, -0.1 to + 0.1° for rectal cancers. CONCLUSIONS: T2 MR or sCT can successfully be used as reference images for anal and rectal cancer CBCT position verification with systematic differences to CT <±1 mm and <±0.5°. Clinical enabling of alternative modalities as reference images by vendors is required to reduce challenges associated with their use.

IPEM topical report: guidance on the use of MRI for external beam radiotherapy treatment planning.

This document gives guidance for multidisciplinary teams within institutions setting up and using an MRI-guided radiotherapy (RT) treatment planning service. It has been written by a multidisciplinary working group from the Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM). Guidance has come from the experience of the institutions represented in the IPEM working group, in consultation with other institutions, and where appropriate references are given for any relevant legislation, other guidance documentation and information in the literature. Guidance is only given for MRI acquired for external beam RT treatment planning in a CT-based workflow, i.e. when MRI is acquired and registered to CT with the purpose of aiding delineation of target or organ at risk volumes. MRI use for treatment response assessment, MRI-only RT and other RT treatment types such as brachytherapy and gamma radiosurgery are not considered within the scope of this document. The aim was to produce guidance that will be useful for institutions who are setting up and using a dedicated MR scanner for RT (referred to as an MR-sim) and those who will have limited time on an MR scanner potentially managed outside of the RT department, often by radiology. Although not specifically covered in this document, there is an increase in the use of hybrid MRI-linac systems worldwide and brief comments are included to highlight any crossover with the early implementation of this technology. In this document, advice is given on introducing a RT workload onto a non-RT-dedicated MR scanner, as well as planning for installation of an MR scanner dedicated for RT. Next, practical guidance is given on the following, in the context of RT planning: training and education for all staff working in and around an MR scanner; RT patient set-up on an MR scanner; MRI sequence optimisation for RT purposes; commissioning and quality assurance (QA) to be performed on an MR scanner; and MRI to CT registration, including commissioning and QA.

Multicentre, deep learning, synthetic-CT generation for ano-rectal MR-only radiotherapy treatment planning.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Comprehensive dosimetric analysis is required prior to the clinical implementation of pelvic MR-only sites, other than prostate, due to the limited number of site specific synthetic-CT (sCT) dosimetric assessments in the literature. This study aims to provide a comprehensive assessment of a deep learning-based, conditional generative adversarial network (cGAN) model for a large ano-rectal cancer cohort. The following challenges were investigated; T2-SPACE MR sequences, patient data from multiple centres and the impact of sex and cancer site on sCT quality. METHOD: RT treatment position CT and T2-SPACE MR scans, from two centres, were collected for 90 ano-rectal patients. A cGAN model trained using a focal loss function, was trained and tested on 46 and 44 CT-MR ano-rectal datasets, paired using deformable registration, respectively. VMAT plans were created on CT and recalculated on sCT. Dose differences and gamma indices assessed sCT dosimetric accuracy. A linear mixed effect (LME) model assessed the impact of centre, sex and cancer site. RESULTS: A mean PTV D95% dose difference of 0.1% (range: -0.5% to 0.7%) was found between CT and sCT. All gamma index (1%/1 mm threshold) measurements were >99.0%. The LME model found the impact of modality, cancer site, sex and centre was clinically insignificant (effect ranges: -0.4% and 0.3%). The mean dose difference for all OAR constraints was 0.1%. CONCLUSION: Focal loss cGAN models using T2-SPACE MR sequences from multiple centres can produce generalisable, dosimetrically accurate sCTs for ano-rectal cancers.

IPEM Topical Report: an international IPEM survey of MRI use for external beam radiotherapy treatment planning.

Introduction/Background. Despite growing interest in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), integration in external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) treatment planning uptake varies globally. In order to understand the current international landscape of MRI in EBRT a survey has been performed in 11 countries. This work reports on differences and common themes identified.Methods. A multi-disciplinary Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine working party modified a survey previously used in the UK to understand current practice using MRI for EBRT treatment planning, investigate how MRI is currently used and managed as well as identify knowledge gaps. It was distributed electronically within 11 countries: Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, the UK and the USA.Results. The survey response rate within the USA was <1% and hence these results omitted from the analysis. In the other 10 countries the survey had a median response rate of 77% per country. Direct MRI access, defined as either having a dedicated MRI scanner for radiotherapy (RT) or access to a radiology MRI scanner, varied between countries. France, Italy and the UK reported the lowest direct MRI access rates and all other countries reported direct access in ≥82% of centres. Whilst ≥83% of centres in Denmark and Sweden reported having dedicated MRI scanners for EBRT, all other countries reported ≤29%. Anatomical sites receiving MRI for EBRT varied between countries with brain, prostate, head and neck being most common. Commissioning and QA of image registration and MRI scanners varied greatly, as did MRI sequences performed, staffing models and training given to different staff groups. The lack of financial reimbursement for MR was a consistent barrier for MRI implementation for RT for all countries and MR access was a reported important barrier for all countries except Sweden and Denmark.Conclusion. No country has a comprehensive approach for MR in EBRT adoption and financial barriers are present worldwide. Variations between countries in practice, equipment, staffing models, training, QA and MRI sequences have been identified, and are likely to be due to differences in funding as well as a lack of consensus or guidelines in the literature. Access to dedicated MR for EBRT is limited in all but Sweden and Denmark, but in all countries there are financial challenges with ongoing per patient costs. Despite these challenges, significant interest exists in increasing MR guided EBRT planning over the next 5 years.

Technical Note: Efficient and accurate MRI-only based treatment planning of the prostate using bulk density assignment through atlas-based segmentation.

PURPOSE: This study investigates the dosimetric accuracy as well as the robustness of a bulk density assignment approach to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-only based treatment planning of the prostate, with bulk density regions automatically identified using atlas-based segmentation (ABS). METHODS: Twenty prostate radiotherapy patients received planning computed tomography (CT) and MRI scans and were treated with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Two bulk densities were set, one for bone and one for soft tissue. The bone contours were created by using ABS followed by manual modification if considered necessary. A range of soft tissue and bone density pairs, between 0.95 and 1.03 g/cm3 with increments of 0.01 for soft tissue, and between 1.15 and 1.65 g/cm3 with increments of 0.05 for bone, were evaluated. Using the density pair giving the lowest dose difference compared to the CT-based dose, dose differences were calculated using both the manually modified bone contours and the bone contours from ABS. Contour overlap measurements between the ABS contours and the manually modified contours were calculated. RESULTS: The dose comparison shows a very good agreement with the CT when using 0.98 g/cm3 for soft tissue and 1.20 g/cm3 for bone, with a dose difference less than 1 % in average dose in all regions of interest. The mean Dice similarity coefficient for bone was 0.94 and the Mean Distance to Agreement was <1 mm in most cases. CONCLUSIONS: Using bulk density assignment on MR images with suitable densities for bone and soft tissue results in clinically acceptable dose differences compared to dose calculated on the CT, for both atlas-based and manual bone contours. This demonstrates that an integrated MRI-only pathway utilizing a bulk density assignment for two tissue types is a feasible and robust approach for patients with prostate cancer treated with VMAT.

Audit feasibility for geometric distortion in magnetic resonance imaging for radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is increasingly being used in radiotherapy (RT). However, geometric distortions are a known challenge of using MRI in RT. The aim of this study was to demonstrate feasibility of a national audit of MRI geometric distortions. This was achieved by assessing large field of view (FOV) MRI distortions on a number of scanners used clinically for RT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MRI scans of a large FOV MRI geometric distortion phantom were acquired on 11 MRI scanners that are used clinically for RT in the UK. The mean and maximum distortions and variance between scanners were reported at different distances from the isocentre. RESULTS: For a small FOV representing a brain (100-150 mm from isocentre) all distortions were < 2 mm except for the maximum distortion of one scanner. For a large FOV representing a head and neck/pelvis (200-250 mm from isocentre) mean distortions were < 2 mm except for one scanner, maximum distortions were > 10 mm in some cases. The variance between scanners was low and was found to increase with distance from isocentre. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated feasibility of the technique to be repeated in a country wide geometric distortion audit of all MRI scanners used clinically for RT. Recommendations were made for performing such an audit and how to derive acceptable limits of distortion in such an audit.

Protecting the Heart: A Practical Approach to Account for the Full Extent of Heart Motion in Radiation Therapy Planning.

PURPOSE: Emerging evidence suggests that the heart is more radiosensitive than previously assumed; therefore, accounting for heart motion in radiation therapy planning is becoming more critical. In this study, we determined how much heart delineations based on 3-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT), 4-dimensional (4D) average projection (AVG), and maximum intensity projection (MIP) images should be extended to represent the full extent of heart motion during 4D imaging acquisition. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The 3D and 4D CT scans of 10 lung cancer patients treated with stereotactic ablative radiation therapy were used. Median surfaces were derived from heart delineations of 3 observers on the 3D CT, AVG, MIP, and 25% exhale scans. Per patient, the 25% exhale contour was propagated on every phase of the 4D scan. The union of all 4D phase delineations (U4D) represented the full extent of heart motion during imaging acquisition. Surface distances from U4D to 3D, AVG, and MIP volumes were calculated. Distances in the most extreme surface points (1.5 cm most superoinferior, 10% most right/left/anteroposterior) were used to derive margins accounting only for systematic (delineation) errors. RESULTS: Heart delineations on the MIP were the closest to the full extent of motion, requiring only ≤2.5-mm margins. Delineations on the AVG and 3D scans required margins up to 3.4 and 7.1 mm, respectively. The largest margins were for the inferior, right, and anterior aspects for the delineations on the 3D, AVG, and MIP scans, respectively. CONCLUSION: Delineations on 3D, AVG, or MIP scans required extensions for representing the heart's full extent of motion, with the MIP requiring the smallest margins. Research including daily imaging to determine the random components for the margins and dosimetric measurements to determine the relevance of creating a planning organ at risk volume of the heart is required.

Applying a commercial atlas-based synthetic Computed Tomography algorithm to patients with hip prostheses for prostate Magnetic Resonance-only radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Magnetic Resonance (MR)-only prostate radiotherapy has recently been clinically implemented using commercial synthetic Computed Tomography (sCT) algorithms. However patients with hip prostheses have been excluded from all MR-only research to date and assumed to require dedicated sCT algorithms. This study aimed to investigate the dosimetric accuracy of applying a commercial sCT algorithm, based on an atlas of patients without hip prostheses, to patients with prostheses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 18 patients with unilateral hip prostheses received MR and CT scans in the radiotherapy position. sCTs were generated from the MR using a commercial algorithm. The clinical Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) plan, consisting of partial arcs which avoided the prosthesis, was recalculated using the sCT and the dose distribution compared. RESULTS: The mean isocentre dose difference was ΔD = (-0.4 ±â€¯0.2)% (mean ±â€¯standard error of the mean (sem), range - 1.9%, 1.1%) and the mean differences in Planning Target Volume, bladder and rectum mean doses were ≤0.3%. The 3D global gamma pass rate with dose difference 1% and distance to agreement 1 mm within the body was ΓBody1/1 = (95.0 ±â€¯0.5)% (sem) and within the 50% isodose volume, which excluded the prosthesis, was Γ50%1/1 = (98.5 ±â€¯0.4)% (sem). The pass rate within the PTV was ΓPTV2/2 ≥ 99.7% for all patients, although for PTVs close (≤3.5 cm) to the prosthesis ΓPTV1/1 < 85% for three patients. The sCT did not accurately represent the prosthesis with a mean difference in radiological isocentre depth near the prosthesis of ΔdOutsideRad = (15.8 ±â€¯2.6) mm (sem). However inside the treatment plan arc the difference was ΔdInsideRad = (-1.8 ±â€¯0.5) mm (sem). CONCLUSIONS: Using a commercial prostate sCT algorithm for patients with unilateral hip prostheses is dosimetrically accurate (<0.5%) as long as the routine prosthesis-avoidance treatment planning approach is used and the PTV is >3.5 cm from the prosthesis. This suggests MR-only prostate radiotherapy can be extended to patients with hip prostheses without requiring a specific sCT algorithm.

The accuracy of Magnetic Resonance - Cone Beam Computed Tomography soft-tissue matching for prostate radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Magnetic Resonance (MR)-Only radiotherapy requires a method for matching image with on-treatment Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT). This study aimed to investigate the accuracy of MR-CBCT soft-tissue matching for prostate MR-only radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three patient cohorts were used, with all patients receiving MR and CT scans. For the first cohort (10 patients) the first fraction CBCT was automatically rigidly registered to the CT and MR scans and the MR-CT registration predicted using the MR-CBCT and CT-CBCT registrations. This was compared to the automatic MR-CT registration. For the second and third cohorts (five patients each) the first fraction CBCT was independently matched to the CT and MR by four radiographers, the MR-CBCT and CT-CBCT matches compared and the inter-observer variability assessed. The second cohort used a CT-based structure set and the third a MR-based structure set with the MR relabelled as a 'CT'. RESULTS: The mean difference between predicted and actual MR-CT registrations was Δ R All = - 0.1 ± 0.2 mm (s.e.m.). Radiographer MR-CBCT registrations were not significantly different to CT-CBCT, with mean differences in soft-tissue match ⩽ 0.2 mm and all except one difference ⩽ 3.3 mm . This was less than the MR-CBCT inter-observer limits of agreement [ 3.5 , 2.4 , 0.9 ] mm (vertical, longitudinal, lateral), which were similar ( ⩽ 0.5 mm ) to CT-CBCT. CONCLUSIONS: MR-CBCT soft-tissue matching is not significantly different to CT-CBCT. Relabelling the MR as a 'CT' does not appear to change the automatic registration. This suggests that MR-CBCT soft-tissue matching is feasible and accurate.

IPEM Topical Report: A 2018 IPEM survey of MRI use for external beam radiotherapy treatment planning in the UK.

The benefits of integrating MRI into the radiotherapy pathway are well published, however there is little consensus in guidance on how to commission or implement its use. With a view to developing consensus guidelines for the use of MRI in external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) treatment planning in the UK, a survey was undertaken by an Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM) working-party to assess the current landscape of MRI use in EBRT in the UK. A multi-disciplinary working-party developed a survey to understand current practice using MRI for EBRT treatment planning; investigate how MRI is currently used and managed; and identify knowledge gaps. The survey was distributed electronically to radiotherapy service managers and physics leads in 71 UK radiotherapy (RT) departments (all NHS and private groups). The survey response rate was 87% overall, with 89% of NHS and 75% of private centres responding. All responding centres include EBRT in some RT pathways: 94% using Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) images potentially acquired without any input from RT departments, and 69% had some form of MRI access for planning EBRT. Most centres reporting direct access use a radiology scanner within the same hospital in dedicated (26%) or non-dedicated (52%) RT scanning sessions. Only two centres reported having dedicated RT MRI scanners in the UK, lower than reported in other countries. Six percent of radiotherapy patients in England (data not publically available outside of England) have MRI as part of their treatment, which again is lower than reported elsewhere. Although a substantial number of centres acquire MRI scans for treatment planning purposes, most centres acquire less than five patient scans per month for each treatment site. Commissioning and quality assurance of both image registration and MRI scanners was found to be variable across the UK. In addition, staffing models and training given to different staff groups varied considerably across the UK, reflecting the current lack of national guidelines. The primary barriers reported to MRI implementation in EBRT planning included costs (e.g. lack of a national tariff for planning MRI), lack of MRI access and/or capacity within hospitals. Despite these challenges, significant interest remains in increasing MRI-assisted EBRT planning over the next five years.

Evaluating the repeatability and set-up sensitivity of a large field of view distortion phantom and software for magnetic resonance-only radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Magnetic Resonance (MR)-only radiotherapy requires geometrically accurate MR images over the full scanner Field of View (FoV). This study aimed to investigate the repeatability of distortion measurements made using a commercial large FoV phantom and analysis software and the sensitivity of these measurements to small set-up errors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Geometric distortion was measured using a commercial phantom and software with 2D and 3D acquisition sequences on three different MR scanners. Two sets of repeatability measurements were made: three scans acquired without moving the phantom between scans (single set-up) and five scans acquired with the phantom re-set up in between each scan (repeated set-up). The set-up sensitivity was assessed by scanning the phantom with an intentional 1 mm lateral offset and independently an intentional 1° rotation. RESULTS: The mean standard deviation of distortion for all phantom markers for the repeated set-up scans was < 0.4 mm for all scanners and sequences. For the 1 mm lateral offset scan 90 % of the markers agreed within two standard deviations of the mean of the repeated set-up scan (median of all scanners and sequences, range 78%-93%). For the 1° rotation scan, 80% of markers agreed within two standard deviations of the mean (range 69%-93%). CONCLUSIONS: Geometric distortion measurements using a commercial phantom and associated software appear repeatable, although with some sensitivity to set-up errors. This suggests the phantom and software are appropriate for commissioning a MR-only radiotherapy workflow.

Systematic Review of Synthetic Computed Tomography Generation Methodologies for Use in Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Only Radiation Therapy.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) offers superior soft-tissue contrast as compared with computed tomography (CT), which is conventionally used for radiation therapy treatment planning (RTP) and patient positioning verification, resulting in improved target definition. The 2 modalities are co-registered for RTP; however, this introduces a systematic error. Implementing an MRI-only radiation therapy workflow would be advantageous because this error would be eliminated, the patient pathway simplified, and patient dose reduced. Unlike CT, in MRI there is no direct relationship between signal intensity and electron density; however, various methodologies for MRI-only RTP have been reported. A systematic review of these methods was undertaken. The PRISMA guidelines were followed. Embase and Medline databases were searched (1996 to March, 2017) for studies that generated synthetic CT scans (sCT)s for MRI-only radiation therapy. Sixty-one articles met the inclusion criteria. This review showed that MRI-only RTP techniques could be grouped into 3 categories: (1) bulk density override; (2) atlas-based; and (3) voxel-based techniques, which all produce an sCT scan from MR images. Bulk density override techniques either used a single homogeneous or multiple tissue override. The former produced large dosimetric errors (>2%) in some cases and the latter frequently required manual bone contouring. Atlas-based techniques used both single and multiple atlases and included methods incorporating pattern recognition techniques. Clinically acceptable sCTs were reported, but atypical anatomy led to erroneous results in some cases. Voxel-based techniques included methods using routine and specialized MRI sequences, namely ultra-short echo time imaging. High-quality sCTs were produced; however, use of multiple sequences led to long scanning times increasing the chances of patient movement. Using nonroutine sequences would currently be problematic in most radiation therapy centers. Atlas-based and voxel-based techniques were found to be the most clinically useful methods, with some studies reporting dosimetric differences of <1% between planning on the sCT and CT and <1-mm deviations when using sCTs for positional verification.