Tilman Bostel1,2,3, Asja Pfaffenberger4, Stefan Delorme3,5, Constantin Dreher3,5, Gernot Echner4, Peter Haering3,4, Clemens Lang3,4, Mona Splinter3,4, Frederik Laun3,4, Marco Müller3,4, Oliver Jäkel3,4, Jürgen Debus1,2,3, Peter E Huber1,2,3, Florian Sterzing1,2,3, Nils H Nicolay6,7,8. 1. Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 3. Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Research in Radiation Oncology, Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 4. Department of Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 5. Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 6. Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. nils.nicolay@med.uni-heidelberg.de. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. nils.nicolay@med.uni-heidelberg.de. 8. Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Research in Radiation Oncology, Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. nils.nicolay@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The present work aimed to analyze the feasibility of a shuttle-based MRI-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) in the treatment of pelvic malignancies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 20 patients with pelvic malignancies were included in this prospective feasibility analysis. Patients underwent daily MRI in treatment position prior to radiotherapy at the German Cancer Research Center. Positional inaccuracies, time and patient compliance were assessed for the application of off-line MRgRT. RESULTS: In 78% of applied radiation fractions, MR imaging for position verification could be performed without problems. Additionally, treatment-related side effects and reduced patient compliance were only responsible for omission of MRI in 9% of radiation fractions. The study workflow took a median time of 61 min (range 47-99 min); duration for radiotherapy alone was 13 min (range 7-26 min). Patient positioning, MR imaging and CT imaging including patient repositioning and the shuttle transfer required median times of 10 min (range 7-14 min), 26 min (range 15-60 min), 5 min (range 3-8 min) and 8 min (range 2-36 min), respectively. To assess feasibility of shuttle-based MRgRT, the reference point coordinates for the x, y and z axis were determined for the MR images and CT obtained prior to the first treatment fraction and correlated with the coordinates of the planning CT. In our dataset, the median positional difference between MR imaging and CT-based imaging based on fiducial matching between MR and CT imaging was equal to or less than 2 mm in all spatial directions. The limited space in the MR scanner influenced patient selection, as the bore of the scanner had to accommodate the immobilization device and the constructed stereotactic frame. Therefore, obese, extremely muscular or very tall patients could not be included in this trial in addition to patients for whom exposure to MRI was generally judged inappropriate. CONCLUSION: This trial demonstrated for the first time the feasibility and patient compliance of a shuttle-based off-line approach to MRgRT of pelvic malignancies.
BACKGROUND: The present work aimed to analyze the feasibility of a shuttle-based MRI-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) in the treatment of pelvic malignancies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 20 patients with pelvic malignancies were included in this prospective feasibility analysis. Patients underwent daily MRI in treatment position prior to radiotherapy at the German Cancer Research Center. Positional inaccuracies, time and patient compliance were assessed for the application of off-line MRgRT. RESULTS: In 78% of applied radiation fractions, MR imaging for position verification could be performed without problems. Additionally, treatment-related side effects and reduced patient compliance were only responsible for omission of MRI in 9% of radiation fractions. The study workflow took a median time of 61 min (range 47-99 min); duration for radiotherapy alone was 13 min (range 7-26 min). Patient positioning, MR imaging and CT imaging including patient repositioning and the shuttle transfer required median times of 10 min (range 7-14 min), 26 min (range 15-60 min), 5 min (range 3-8 min) and 8 min (range 2-36 min), respectively. To assess feasibility of shuttle-based MRgRT, the reference point coordinates for the x, y and z axis were determined for the MR images and CT obtained prior to the first treatment fraction and correlated with the coordinates of the planning CT. In our dataset, the median positional difference between MR imaging and CT-based imaging based on fiducial matching between MR and CT imaging was equal to or less than 2 mm in all spatial directions. The limited space in the MR scanner influenced patient selection, as the bore of the scanner had to accommodate the immobilization device and the constructed stereotactic frame. Therefore, obese, extremely muscular or very tall patients could not be included in this trial in addition to patients for whom exposure to MRI was generally judged inappropriate. CONCLUSION: This trial demonstrated for the first time the feasibility and patient compliance of a shuttle-based off-line approach to MRgRT of pelvic malignancies.
Authors: Jan J W Lagendijk; Bas W Raaymakers; Alexander J E Raaijmakers; Johan Overweg; Kevin J Brown; Ellen M Kerkhof; Richard W van der Put; Björn Hårdemark; Marco van Vulpen; Uulke A van der Heide Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2007-11-26 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: B W Raaymakers; J J W Lagendijk; J Overweg; J G M Kok; A J E Raaijmakers; E M Kerkhof; R W van der Put; I Meijsing; S P M Crijns; F Benedosso; M van Vulpen; C H W de Graaff; J Allen; K J Brown Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2009-05-19 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: David A Jaffray; Marco C Carlone; Michael F Milosevic; Stephen L Breen; Teodor Stanescu; Alexandra Rink; Hamideh Alasti; Anna Simeonov; Michael C Sweitzer; Jeffrey D Winter Journal: Semin Radiat Oncol Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 5.934
Authors: Michel J Ghilezan; David A Jaffray; Jeffrey H Siewerdsen; Marcel Van Herk; Anil Shetty; Michael B Sharpe; Syed Zafar Jafri; Frank A Vicini; Richard C Matter; Donald S Brabbins; Alvaro A Martinez Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: M Guckenberger; N Andratschke; H Alheit; R Holy; C Moustakis; U Nestle; O Sauer Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2013-09-21 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Mona Splinter; Ilias Sachpazidis; Tilman Bostel; Tobias Fechter; Constantinos Zamboglou; Christian Thieke; Oliver Jäkel; Peter E Huber; Jürgen Debus; Dimos Baltas; Nils H Nicolay Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2020-09-29 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Sebastian Klüter; Sonja Katayama; C Katharina Spindeldreier; Stefan A Koerber; Gerald Major; Markus Alber; Sati Akbaba; Jürgen Debus; Juliane Hörner-Rieber Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2020-01-30 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Yihang Zhou; Jing Yuan; Oi Lei Wong; Winky Wing Ki Fung; Ka Fai Cheng; Kin Yin Cheung; Siu Ki Yu Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2018-10
Authors: T Bostel; C Dreher; D Wollschläger; A Mayer; F König; S Bickelhaupt; H P Schlemmer; P E Huber; F Sterzing; P Bäumer; J Debus; N H Nicolay Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-07-11 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Mona Splinter; Tilman Bostel; Ilias Sachpazidis; Tobias Fechter; Constantinos Zamboglou; Oliver Jäkel; Peter E Huber; Jürgen Debus; Dimos Baltas; Nils H Nicolay Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2019-11-08 Impact factor: 6.244