Evaluation of therapeutic radiographer contouring for magnetic resonance image guided online adaptive prostate radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The implementation of MRI-guided online adaptive radiotherapy has facilitated the extension of therapeutic radiographers' roles to include contouring, thus releasing the clinician from attending daily treatment. Following undergoing a specifically designed training programme, an online interobserver variability study was performed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 117 images from six patients treated on a MR Linac were contoured online by either radiographer or clinician and the same images contoured offline by the alternate profession. Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), mean distance to agreement (MDA), Hausdorff distance (HD) and volume metrics were used to analyse contours. Additionally, the online radiographer contours and optimised plans (n = 59) were analysed using the offline clinician defined contours. After clinical implementation of radiographer contouring, target volume comparison and dose analysis was performed on 20 contours from five patients. RESULTS: Comparison of the radiographers' and clinicians' contours resulted in a median (range) DSC of 0.92 (0.86 - 0.99), median (range) MDA of 0.98 mm (0.2-1.7) and median (range) HD of 6.3 mm (2.5-11.5) for all 117 fractions. There was no significant difference in volume size between the two groups. Of the 59 plans created with radiographer online contours and overlaid with clinicians' offline contours, 39 met mandatory dose constraints and 12 were acceptable because 95 % of the high dose PTV was covered by 95 % dose, or the high dose PTV was within 3 % of online plan. A clinician blindly reviewed the eight remaining fractions and, using trial quality assurance metrics, deemed all to be acceptable. Following clinical implementation of radiographer contouring, the median (range) DSC of CTV was 0.93 (0.88-1.0), median (range) MDA was 0.8 mm (0.04-1.18) and HD was 5.15 mm (2.09-8.54) respectively. Of the 20 plans created using radiographer online contours overlaid with clinicians' offline contours, 18 met the dosimetric success criteria, the remaining 2 were deemed acceptable by a clinician. CONCLUSION: Radiographer and clinician prostate and seminal vesicle contours on MRI for an online adaptive workflow are comparable and produce clinically acceptable plans. Radiographer contouring for prostate treatment on a MR-linac can be effectively introduced with appropriate training and evaluation. A DSC threshold for target structures could be implemented to streamline future training.

Interobserver variation of clinical oncologists compared to therapeutic radiographers (RTT) prostate contours on T2 weighted MRI.

The implementation of MRI-guided online adaptive radiotherapy has enabled extension of therapeutic radiographers' roles to include contouring. An offline interobserver variability study compared five radiographers' and five clinicians' contours on 10 MRIs acquired on a MR-Linac from 10 patients. All contours were compared to a "gold standard" created from an average of clinicians' contours. The median (range) DSC of radiographers' and clinicians' contours compared to the "gold standard" was 0.91 (0.86-0.96), and 0.93 (0.88-0.97) respectively illustrating non-inferiority of the radiographers' contours to the clinicians. There was no significant difference in HD, MDA or volume size between the groups.

Bladder filling in patients undergoing prostate radiotherapy on a MR-linac: The dosimetric impact.

The implementation of adaptive radiotherapy for prostate cancer compensates for inter-fraction motion, at the penalty of increased time in room. The subsequent increase in bladder filling may impact dosimetry, which we have investigated on ten patients treated on the MR-linac. Patients drank water before treatment, to achieve a bladder volume of 200-300 cm3. Bladder and bowel were re-outlined offline on 140 images and plans recalculated. All mandatory bladder dose constraints and 99.1% of bowel constraints were achieved at time of treatment, despite varying bladder volumes and varying adherence to original bladder filling guidance.

Factors affecting accuracy and precision in ultrasound guided radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Transperineal ultrasound (TPUS) is used clinically for directly assessing prostate motion. Factors affecting accuracy and precision in TPUS motion estimation must be assessed to realise its full potential. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients were imaged using volumetric TPUS during the Clarity-Pro trial (NCT02388308). Prostate motion was measured online at patient set-up and offline by experienced observers. Cone beam CT with markers was used as a comparator and observer performance was also quantified. The influence of different clinical factors was examined to establish specific recommendations towards efficacious ultrasound guided radiotherapy. RESULTS: From 330 fractions in 22 patients, offline observer random errors were 1.5 mm, 1.3 mm, 1.9 mm (left-right, superior-inferior, anteroposterior respectively). Errors increased in fractions exhibiting poor image quality to 3.3 mm, 3.3 mm and 6.8 mm. Poor image quality was associated with inconsistent probe placement, large anatomical changes and unfavourable imaging conditions within the patient. Online matching exhibited increased observer errors of: 3.2 mm, 2.9 mm and 4.7 mm. Four patients exhibited large systematic residual errors, of which three had poor quality images. Patient habitus showed no correlation with observer error, residual error, or image quality. CONCLUSIONS: TPUS offers the unique potential to directly assess inter- and intra-fraction motion on conventional linacs. Inconsistent image quality, inexperienced operators and the pressures of the clinical environment may degrade precision and accuracy. Experienced operators are essential and cross-centre standards for training and QA should be established that build upon current guidance. Greater use of automation technologies may further minimise uncertainties.

Development and results of a patient-reported treatment experience questionnaire on a 1.5 T MR-Linac.

INTRODUCTION: With the implementation of new radiotherapy technology, it is imperative that patient experience is investigated alongside efficacy and outcomes. This paper presents the development of a specifically designed validated questionnaire and a first report of international multi-institutional preliminary patient experience of MRI-guided adaptive radiotherapy (MRgART) on the 1.5 T MR-Linac (MRL). METHODS: A patient experience questionnaire was developed and validated before being distributed to the Elekta MRL Consortium, to gather first patient-reported experience from participating centres worldwide. The final version of the questionnaire contains 18 questions covering a range of themes and was scored on a Likert scale of 0-3. Responses were post-processed so that a score of 0 represents a negative response and 3 represents the most favourable response. These results were analysed for patient-reported experience of treatment on the MRL. Results were also analysed for internal consistency of the questionnaire using Chronbach's Alpha and the questionnaire contents were validated for relevance using content validity indexes (CVI). RESULTS: 170 responses were received from five centres, representing patients with a wide range of tumour treatment sites from four different countries. MRgART was well tolerated with an 84% favourable response across all questions and respondents. When analysed by theme, all reported the highest percentage of results in the favourable categories (2 and 3). Internal consistency in the questionnaire was high (Cronbach's α = 0.8) and the item-level CVI for each question was 0.78 or above and the Scale-level CVI was 0.93, representing relevant content. CONCLUSION: The developed questionnaire has been validated as relevant and appropriate for use in reporting experience of patients undergoing treatment on the MRL. The overall patient-reported experience and satisfaction from multiple centres within the Elekta MRL Consortium was consistently high. These results can reinforce user confidence in continuing to expand and develop MRL use in adaptive radiotherapy.

Laser-free pelvic alignment in an online adaptive radiotherapy environment.

The MR-Linac (MRL) provides a novel treatment modality that enables online adaptive treatments, but also creates new challenges for patient positioning in a laser-free environment. The accuracy and duration of prostate patient set-up on the MRL using two different methods for patient alignment was determined to establish standard of practice on the MRL. Differences in set-up accuracy were significant in the longitudinal direction and are accounted for in online plan adaption. Both methods recorded similar set-up times. The vendor recommended alignment method involves less manipulation of the patient and will be adopted as the standard positioning method for prostate and other pelvic patients on the MRL in future.

Daily adaptive radiotherapy for patients with prostate cancer using a high field MR-linac: Initial clinical experiences and assessment of delivered doses compared to a C-arm linac.

INTRODUCTION: MR-guided adapted radiotherapy (MRgART) using a high field MR-linac has recently become available. We report the estimated delivered fractional dose of the first five prostate cancer patients treated at our centre using MRgART and compare this to C-Arm linac daily Image Guided Radiotherapy (IGRT). METHODS: Patients were treated using adapted treatment plans shaped to their daily anatomy. The treatments were recalculated on an MR image acquired immediately prior to treatment delivery in order to estimate the delivered fractional dose. C-arm linac non-adapted VMAT treatment plans were recalculated on the same MR images to estimate the fractional dose that would have been delivered using conventional radiotherapy techniques using a daily IGRT protocol. RESULTS: 95% and 93% of mandatory target coverage objectives and organ at risk dose constraints were achieved by MRgART and C-arm linac delivered dose estimates, respectively. Both delivery techniques were estimated to have achieved 98% of mandatory Organ At Risk (OAR) dose constraints whereas for the target clinical goals, 86% and 80% were achieved by MRgART and C-arm linac delivered dose estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate MRgART can be delivered using the a high field MR-linac. Radiotherapy performed on a C-arm linac offers a good solution for prostate cancer patients who present with favourable anatomy at the time of reference imaging and demonstrate stable anatomy throughout the course of their treatment. For patients with critical OARs abutting target volumes on their reference image we have demonstrated the potential for a target dose coverage improvement for MRgART compared to C-arm linac treatment.