Rasmus L Christiansen1, Henrik R Jensen1, Carsten Brink1,2. 1. a Laboratory of Radiation Physics, Department of Oncology , Odense University Hospital , Odense , Denmark. 2. b Institute of Clinical Science, University of Southern Denmark , Odense , Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current state of the art radiotherapy planning of prostate cancer utilises magnetic resonance (MR) for soft tissue delineation and computed tomography (CT) to provide an electron density map for dose calculation. This dual scan workflow is prone to setup and registration error. This study evaluates the feasibility of an MR-only workflow and the validity of dose calculation from an MR derived pseudo CT. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty prostate cancer patients were CT and MR scanned. Clinical treatment plans were generated on CT using a single 18 MV arc volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with a prescription of 78 Gy/39 fractions. Dose was recalculated on pseudo CT and assuming uniform water density. Pseudo CT and uniform density based dose calculations were compared to CT dose calculations by gamma analysis. One patient was treated with a plan based solely on MR and pseudo CT including daily image guided radiotherapy (IGRT) performed by manual match of implanted gold markers. RESULTS: A pseudo CT was generated for 29 of the 30 patients. Median gamma pass rates for 1%/1 mm passing criteria for dose calculated on pseudo CT when compared to CT were 100% for most evaluated structures. Dose calculated on uniform density also yielded high median pass rates, but with a higher occurrence of pass rates below 95%. Cases of pass rate below 95% on pseudo CT proved to originate from the presence of rectal air on CT, not represented by the pseudo CT. Treatment based on MR alone was successfully delivered to one patient, including manually performed daily IGRT. CONCLUSIONS: Median gamma pass rates were high for pseudo CT and proved superior to uniform density. Local differences in dose calculations were concluded not to have clinical relevance. Feasibility of the MR-only workflow was demonstrated through successful delivery of a treatment course planned based on MR alone.
BACKGROUND: Current state of the art radiotherapy planning of prostate cancer utilises magnetic resonance (MR) for soft tissue delineation and computed tomography (CT) to provide an electron density map for dose calculation. This dual scan workflow is prone to setup and registration error. This study evaluates the feasibility of an MR-only workflow and the validity of dose calculation from an MR derived pseudo CT. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty prostate cancerpatients were CT and MR scanned. Clinical treatment plans were generated on CT using a single 18 MV arc volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with a prescription of 78 Gy/39 fractions. Dose was recalculated on pseudo CT and assuming uniform water density. Pseudo CT and uniform density based dose calculations were compared to CT dose calculations by gamma analysis. One patient was treated with a plan based solely on MR and pseudo CT including daily image guided radiotherapy (IGRT) performed by manual match of implanted gold markers. RESULTS: A pseudo CT was generated for 29 of the 30 patients. Median gamma pass rates for 1%/1 mm passing criteria for dose calculated on pseudo CT when compared to CT were 100% for most evaluated structures. Dose calculated on uniform density also yielded high median pass rates, but with a higher occurrence of pass rates below 95%. Cases of pass rate below 95% on pseudo CT proved to originate from the presence of rectal air on CT, not represented by the pseudo CT. Treatment based on MR alone was successfully delivered to one patient, including manually performed daily IGRT. CONCLUSIONS: Median gamma pass rates were high for pseudo CT and proved superior to uniform density. Local differences in dose calculations were concluded not to have clinical relevance. Feasibility of the MR-only workflow was demonstrated through successful delivery of a treatment course planned based on MR alone.
Authors: Neelam Tyagi; Michael J Zelefsky; Andreas Wibmer; Kristen Zakian; Sarah Burleson; Laura Happersett; Aleksi Halkola; Mo Kadbi; Margie Hunt Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-10-13
Authors: Iva Bratova; Petr Paluska; Jakub Grepl; Petra Sykorova; Jan Jansa; Miroslav Hodek; Igor Sirak; Milan Vosmik; Jiri Petera Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2019-02-28
Authors: Reko Kemppainen; Sami Suilamo; Iiro Ranta; Marko Pesola; Aleksi Halkola; Alvin Eufemio; Heikki Minn; Jani Keyriläinen Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-06-22