Marcel Nachbar1, David Mönnich1, Paul Kalwa1, Daniel Zips2,3, Daniela Thorwarth1,2, Cihan Gani4,5,6. 1. Section for Biomedical Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital and Medical Faculty, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. 2. German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Tübingen; and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital and Medical Faculty, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany. 4. German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Tübingen; and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. cihan.gani@med.uni-tuebingen.de. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital and Medical Faculty, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany. cihan.gani@med.uni-tuebingen.de. 6. Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Comprehensive Cancer Center Tübingen-Stuttgart, Tübingen, Germany. cihan.gani@med.uni-tuebingen.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare radiotherapy treatments plans in esophageal cancer calculated for a high-field magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-linac with plans for a conventional linac. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinomas were re-planned retrospectively using the research version of Monaco (V 5.19.03, Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden). Intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans with a nine-field step-and-shoot technique and two-arc volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were created for the Elekta MRI-linac and a conventional linac, respectively. The prescribed dose was 60 Gy to the primary tumor (PTV60) and 50 Gy to elective volumes (PTV50). Plans were optimized for optimal coverage of the 60 Gy volume and compared using dose-volume histogram parameters. RESULTS: All calculated treatment plans met predefined criteria for target volume coverage and organs at risk dose both for MRI-linac and conventional linac. Plans for the MRI-linac had a lower number of segments and monitor units. No significant differences between both plans were seen in terms of V20Gy of the lungs and V40Gy of the heart with slightly higher mean doses to the heart (14.0 Gy vs. 12.5 Gy) and lungs (12.8 Gy vs. 12.2 Gy). CONCLUSION: Applying conventional target volume and margin concepts as well as dose-fractionation prescription reveals clinically acceptable dose distributions using hybrid MRI-linac in its current configuration compared to standard IMRT/VMAT. This represents an important prerequisite for future studies to investigate the clinical benefit of MRI-guided radiotherapy exploiting the conceptional advantages such as reduced margins, plan adaptation and biological individualization and hypofractionation.
PURPOSE: To compare radiotherapy treatments plans in esophageal cancer calculated for a high-field magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-linac with plans for a conventional linac. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinomas were re-planned retrospectively using the research version of Monaco (V 5.19.03, Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden). Intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans with a nine-field step-and-shoot technique and two-arc volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were created for the Elekta MRI-linac and a conventional linac, respectively. The prescribed dose was 60 Gy to the primary tumor (PTV60) and 50 Gy to elective volumes (PTV50). Plans were optimized for optimal coverage of the 60 Gy volume and compared using dose-volume histogram parameters. RESULTS: All calculated treatment plans met predefined criteria for target volume coverage and organs at risk dose both for MRI-linac and conventional linac. Plans for the MRI-linac had a lower number of segments and monitor units. No significant differences between both plans were seen in terms of V20Gy of the lungs and V40Gy of the heart with slightly higher mean doses to the heart (14.0 Gy vs. 12.5 Gy) and lungs (12.8 Gy vs. 12.2 Gy). CONCLUSION: Applying conventional target volume and margin concepts as well as dose-fractionation prescription reveals clinically acceptable dose distributions using hybrid MRI-linac in its current configuration compared to standard IMRT/VMAT. This represents an important prerequisite for future studies to investigate the clinical benefit of MRI-guided radiotherapy exploiting the conceptional advantages such as reduced margins, plan adaptation and biological individualization and hypofractionation.
Entities:
Keywords:
Intensity-modulated radiotherapy; Magnetic resonance imaging; Organs at risk; Squamous cell carcinomas; Volumetric modulated arc therapy
Authors: A J E Raaijmakers; B Hårdemark; B W Raaymakers; C P J Raaijmakers; J J W Lagendijk Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2007-11-15 Impact factor: 3.609
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: Jannet C Beukema; Peter van Luijk; Joachim Widder; Johannes A Langendijk; Christina T Muijs Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2014-12-30 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Bruce D Minsky; Thomas F Pajak; Robert J Ginsberg; Thomas M Pisansky; James Martenson; Ritsuko Komaki; Gordon Okawara; Seth A Rosenthal; David P Kelsen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Tristan C F van Heijst; Mariska D den Hartogh; Jan J W Lagendijk; H J G Desirée van den Bongard; Bram van Asselen Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2013-08-06 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: James Welsh; Stephen H Settle; Arya Amini; Lianchun Xiao; Akihiro Suzuki; Yuki Hayashi; Wayne Hofstetter; Ritsuko Komaki; Zhongxing Liao; Jaffer A Ajani Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-10-05 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: William A Hall; Eric Paulson; X Allen Li; Beth Erickson; Christopher Schultz; Alison Tree; Musaddiq Awan; Daniel A Low; Brigid A McDonald; Travis Salzillo; Carri K Glide-Hurst; Amar U Kishan; Clifton D Fuller Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2021-11-18 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Cihan Gani; S Boeke; H McNair; J Ehlers; M Nachbar; D Mönnich; A Stolte; J Boldt; C Marks; J Winter; Luise A Künzel; S Gatidis; M Bitzer; D Thorwarth; D Zips Journal: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-11-30
Authors: M R Boekhoff; R Bouwmans; P A H Doornaert; M P W Intven; J J W Lagendijk; A L H M W van Lier; M J A Rasing; S van de Ven; G J Meijer; S Mook Journal: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-03-17
Authors: Sophie R de Mol van Otterloo; John P Christodouleas; Erwin L A Blezer; Hafid Akhiat; Kevin Brown; Ananya Choudhury; Dave Eggert; Beth A Erickson; Corinne Faivre-Finn; Clifton D Fuller; Joel Goldwein; Shaista Hafeez; Emma Hall; Kevin J Harrington; Uulke A van der Heide; Robert A Huddart; Martijn P W Intven; Anna M Kirby; Susan Lalondrelle; Claire McCann; Bruce D Minsky; Stella Mook; Marlies E Nowee; Uwe Oelfke; Kristina Orrling; Arjun Sahgal; Jeffrey G Sarmiento; Christopher J Schultz; Robbert J H A Tersteeg; Rob H N Tijssen; Alison C Tree; Baukelien van Triest; William A Hall; Helena M Verkooijen Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2020-09-07 Impact factor: 6.244