Emilia Persson1, Christian Gustafsson2, Fredrik Nordström3, Maja Sohlin3, Adalsteinn Gunnlaugsson4, Karin Petruson5, Niina Rintelä6, Kristoffer Hed6, Lennart Blomqvist7, Björn Zackrisson8, Tufve Nyholm9, Lars E Olsson10, Carl Siversson11, Joakim Jonsson8. 1. Department of Hematology, Oncology, and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden; Department of Medical Physics, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden. Electronic address: Emilia.Persson@skane.se. 2. Department of Hematology, Oncology, and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden; Department of Medical Physics, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden. 3. Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden. 4. Department of Hematology, Oncology, and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden. 5. Department of Oncology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden. 6. Medical Radiation Physics and Nuclear Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. 7. Department of Radiation Sciences, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden; Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. 8. Department of Radiation Sciences, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden. 9. Department of Radiation Sciences, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden; Department of Immunology, Genetics, and Pathology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. 10. Department of Medical Physics, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden. 11. Spectronic Medical AB, Helsingborg, Sweden.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To validate the dosimetric accuracy and clinical robustness of a commercially available software for magnetic resonance (MR) to synthetic computed tomography (sCT) conversion, in an MR imaging-only workflow for 170 prostate cancer patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The 4 participating centers had MriPlanner (Spectronic Medical), an atlas-based sCT generation software, installed as a cloud-based service. A T2-weighted MR sequence, covering the body contour, was added to the clinical protocol. The MR images were sent from the MR scanner workstation to the MriPlanner platform. The sCT was automatically returned to the treatment planning system. Four MR scanners and 2 magnetic field strengths were included in the study. For each patient, a CT-treatment plan was created and approved according to clinical practice. The sCT was rigidly registered to the CT, and the clinical treatment plan was recalculated on the sCT. The dose distributions from the CT plan and the sCT plan were compared according to a set of dose-volume histogram parameters and gamma evaluation. Treatment techniques included volumetric modulated arc therapy, intensity modulated radiation therapy, and conventional treatment using 2 treatment planning systems and different dose calculation algorithms. RESULTS: The overall (multicenter/multivendor) mean dose differences between sCT and CT dose distributions were below 0.3% for all evaluated organs and targets. Gamma evaluation showed a mean pass rate of 99.12% (0.63%, 1 SD) in the complete body volume and 99.97% (0.13%, 1 SD) in the planning target volume using a 2%/2-mm global gamma criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Results of the study show that the sCT conversion method can be used clinically, with minimal differences between sCT and CT dose distributions for target and relevant organs at risk. The small differences seen are consistent between centers, indicating that an MR imaging-only workflow using MriPlanner is robust for a variety of field strengths, vendors, and treatment techniques.
PURPOSE: To validate the dosimetric accuracy and clinical robustness of a commercially available software for magnetic resonance (MR) to synthetic computed tomography (sCT) conversion, in an MR imaging-only workflow for 170 prostate cancerpatients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The 4 participating centers had MriPlanner (Spectronic Medical), an atlas-based sCT generation software, installed as a cloud-based service. A T2-weighted MR sequence, covering the body contour, was added to the clinical protocol. The MR images were sent from the MR scanner workstation to the MriPlanner platform. The sCT was automatically returned to the treatment planning system. Four MR scanners and 2 magnetic field strengths were included in the study. For each patient, a CT-treatment plan was created and approved according to clinical practice. The sCT was rigidly registered to the CT, and the clinical treatment plan was recalculated on the sCT. The dose distributions from the CT plan and the sCT plan were compared according to a set of dose-volume histogram parameters and gamma evaluation. Treatment techniques included volumetric modulated arc therapy, intensity modulated radiation therapy, and conventional treatment using 2 treatment planning systems and different dose calculation algorithms. RESULTS: The overall (multicenter/multivendor) mean dose differences between sCT and CT dose distributions were below 0.3% for all evaluated organs and targets. Gamma evaluation showed a mean pass rate of 99.12% (0.63%, 1 SD) in the complete body volume and 99.97% (0.13%, 1 SD) in the planning target volume using a 2%/2-mm global gamma criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Results of the study show that the sCT conversion method can be used clinically, with minimal differences between sCT and CT dose distributions for target and relevant organs at risk. The small differences seen are consistent between centers, indicating that an MR imaging-only workflow using MriPlanner is robust for a variety of field strengths, vendors, and treatment techniques.
Authors: Neil R Parikh; Mary Ann Clark; Parashar Patel; Kayla Kafka-Peterson; Lalaine Zaide; Ting Martin Ma; Michael L Steinberg; Minsong Cao; Ann C Raldow; James Lamb; Amar U Kishan Journal: Appl Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-10-05
Authors: Jarad Martin; Paul Keall; Shankar Siva; Peter Greer; David Christie; Kevin Moore; Jason Dowling; David Pryor; Peter Chong; Nicholas McLeod; Avi Raman; James Lynam; Joanne Smart; Christopher Oldmeadow; Colin I Tang; Declan G Murphy; Jeremy Millar; Keen Hun Tai; Lois Holloway; Penny Reeves; Amy Hayden; Tee Lim; Tanya Holt; Mark Sidhom Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-08-20 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Emilia Palmér; Emilia Persson; Petra Ambolt; Christian Gustafsson; Adalsteinn Gunnlaugsson; Lars E Olsson Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2018-09-04 Impact factor: 2.102