BACKGROUND: Onboard magnetic resonance imaging (OB-MRI) for daily localization and adaptive radiotherapy has been under development by several groups. However, no clinical studies have evaluated whether OB-MRI improves visualization of the target and organs at risk (OARs) compared to standard onboard computed tomography (OB-CT). This study compared visualization of patient anatomy on images acquired on the MRI-(60)Co ViewRay system to those acquired with OB-CT. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fourteen patients enrolled on a protocol approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and undergoing image-guided radiotherapy for cancer in the thorax (n = 2), pelvis (n = 6), abdomen (n = 3) or head and neck (n = 3) were imaged with OB-MRI and OB-CT. For each of the 14 patients, the OB-MRI and OB-CT datasets were displayed side-by-side and independently reviewed by three radiation oncologists. Each physician was asked to evaluate which dataset offered better visualization of the target and OARs. A quantitative contouring study was performed on two abdominal patients to assess if OB-MRI could offer improved inter-observer segmentation agreement for adaptive planning. RESULTS: In total 221 OARs and 10 targets were compared for visualization on OB-MRI and OB-CT by each of the three physicians. The majority of physicians (two or more) evaluated visualization on MRI as better for 71% of structures, worse for 10% of structures, and equivalent for 14% of structures. 5% of structures were not visible on either. Physicians agreed unanimously for 74% and in majority for > 99% of structures. Targets were better visualized on MRI in 4/10 cases, and never on OB-CT. CONCLUSION: Low-field MR provides better anatomic visualization of many radiotherapy targets and most OARs as compared to OB-CT. Further studies with OB-MRI should be pursued.
BACKGROUND: Onboard magnetic resonance imaging (OB-MRI) for daily localization and adaptive radiotherapy has been under development by several groups. However, no clinical studies have evaluated whether OB-MRI improves visualization of the target and organs at risk (OARs) compared to standard onboard computed tomography (OB-CT). This study compared visualization of patient anatomy on images acquired on the MRI-(60)Co ViewRay system to those acquired with OB-CT. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fourteen patients enrolled on a protocol approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and undergoing image-guided radiotherapy for cancer in the thorax (n = 2), pelvis (n = 6), abdomen (n = 3) or head and neck (n = 3) were imaged with OB-MRI and OB-CT. For each of the 14 patients, the OB-MRI and OB-CT datasets were displayed side-by-side and independently reviewed by three radiation oncologists. Each physician was asked to evaluate which dataset offered better visualization of the target and OARs. A quantitative contouring study was performed on two abdominal patients to assess if OB-MRI could offer improved inter-observer segmentation agreement for adaptive planning. RESULTS: In total 221 OARs and 10 targets were compared for visualization on OB-MRI and OB-CT by each of the three physicians. The majority of physicians (two or more) evaluated visualization on MRI as better for 71% of structures, worse for 10% of structures, and equivalent for 14% of structures. 5% of structures were not visible on either. Physicians agreed unanimously for 74% and in majority for > 99% of structures. Targets were better visualized on MRI in 4/10 cases, and never on OB-CT. CONCLUSION: Low-field MR provides better anatomic visualization of many radiotherapy targets and most OARs as compared to OB-CT. Further studies with OB-MRI should be pursued.
Authors: L E Henke; J A Contreras; O L Green; B Cai; H Kim; M C Roach; J R Olsen; B Fischer-Valuck; D F Mullen; R Kashani; M A Thomas; J Huang; I Zoberi; D Yang; V Rodriguez; J D Bradley; C G Robinson; P Parikh; S Mutic; J Michalski Journal: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) Date: 2018-09-07 Impact factor: 4.126
Authors: Luca Boldrini; Angela Romano; Silvia Mariani; Davide Cusumano; Francesco Catucci; Lorenzo Placidi; Gian Carlo Mattiucci; Giuditta Chiloiro; Francesco Cellini; Maria Antonietta Gambacorta; Luca Indovina; Vincenzo Valentini Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Benjamin Spieler; Stuart E Samuels; Ricardo Llorente; Raphael Yechieli; John Chetley Ford; Eric A Mellon Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-11-26