BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Monitoring the intrafraction motion and its impact on the planned dose distribution is of crucial importance in radiotherapy. In this work we quantify the delivered dose for the first prostate patients treated on a combined 1.5T Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and linear accelerator system in our clinic based on online 3D cine-MR and treatment log files. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prostate intrafraction motion trace was obtained with a soft-tissue based rigid registration method with six degrees of freedom from 3D cine-MR dynamics with a temporal resolution of 8.5-16.9 s. For each fraction, all dynamics were also registered to the daily MR image used during the online treatment planning, enabling the mapping to this reference point. Moreover, each fraction's treatment log file was used to extract the timestamped machine parameters during delivery and assign it to the appropriate dynamic volume. These partial plans to dynamic volume combinations were calculated and summed to yield the delivered fraction dose. The planned and delivered dose distributions were compared among all patients for a total of 100 fractions. RESULTS: The clinical target volume underwent on average a decrease of 2.2% ± 2.9% in terms of D99% coverage while bladder V62Gy was increased by 1.6% ± 2.3% and rectum V62Gy decreased by 0.2% ± 2.2%. CONCLUSIONS: The first MR-linac dose reconstruction results based on prostate tracking from intrafraction 3D cine-MR and treatment log files are presented. Such a pipeline is essential for online adaptation especially as we progress to MRI-guided extremely hypofractionated treatments.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Monitoring the intrafraction motion and its impact on the planned dose distribution is of crucial importance in radiotherapy. In this work we quantify the delivered dose for the first prostate patients treated on a combined 1.5T Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and linear accelerator system in our clinic based on online 3D cine-MR and treatment log files. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prostate intrafraction motion trace was obtained with a soft-tissue based rigid registration method with six degrees of freedom from 3D cine-MR dynamics with a temporal resolution of 8.5-16.9 s. For each fraction, all dynamics were also registered to the daily MR image used during the online treatment planning, enabling the mapping to this reference point. Moreover, each fraction's treatment log file was used to extract the timestamped machine parameters during delivery and assign it to the appropriate dynamic volume. These partial plans to dynamic volume combinations were calculated and summed to yield the delivered fraction dose. The planned and delivered dose distributions were compared among all patients for a total of 100 fractions. RESULTS: The clinical target volume underwent on average a decrease of 2.2% ± 2.9% in terms of D99% coverage while bladder V62Gy was increased by 1.6% ± 2.3% and rectum V62Gy decreased by 0.2% ± 2.2%. CONCLUSIONS: The first MR-linac dose reconstruction results based on prostate tracking from intrafraction 3D cine-MR and treatment log files are presented. Such a pipeline is essential for online adaptation especially as we progress to MRI-guided extremely hypofractionated treatments.
Authors: Anders Widmark; Adalsteinn Gunnlaugsson; Lars Beckman; Camilla Thellenberg-Karlsson; Morten Hoyer; Magnus Lagerlund; Jon Kindblom; Claes Ginman; Bengt Johansson; Kirsten Björnlinger; Mihajl Seke; Måns Agrup; Per Fransson; Björn Tavelin; David Norman; Björn Zackrisson; Harald Anderson; Elisabeth Kjellén; Lars Franzén; Per Nilsson Journal: Lancet Date: 2019-06-18 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: D M de Muinck Keizer; L G W Kerkmeijer; M Maspero; A Andreychenko; J R N van der Voort van Zyp; C A T van den Berg; B W Raaymakers; J J W Lagendijk; J C J de Boer Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2019-12-05 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: D M de Muinck Keizer; C Kontaxis; L G W Kerkmeijer; J R N van der Voort van Zyp; C A T van den Berg; B W Raaymakers; J J W Lagendijk; J C J de Boer Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2020-01-17 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Scott C Morgan; Karen Hoffman; D Andrew Loblaw; Mark K Buyyounouski; Caroline Patton; Daniel Barocas; Soren Bentzen; Michael Chang; Jason Efstathiou; Patrick Greany; Per Halvorsen; Bridget F Koontz; Colleen Lawton; C Marc Leyrer; Daniel Lin; Michael Ray; Howard Sandler Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-10-11
Authors: Twyla R Willoughby; Patrick A Kupelian; Jean Pouliot; Katsuto Shinohara; Michelle Aubin; Mack Roach; Lisa L Skrumeda; James M Balter; Dale W Litzenberg; Scott W Hadley; John T Wei; Howard M Sandler Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Katja M Langen; Bhavin Chauhan; Jeffrey V Siebers; Joseph Moore; Patrick A Kupelian Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-04-06 Impact factor: 7.038
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: Hans C J de Boer; Marjolein J H van Os; Peter P Jansen; Ben J M Heijmen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-03-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Haisen S Li; Indrin J Chetty; Charles A Enke; Ryan D Foster; Twyla R Willoughby; Patrick A Kupellian; Timothy D Solberg Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-01-30 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Anita M Werensteijn-Honingh; Petra S Kroon; Dennis Winkel; J Carlijn van Gaal; Jochem Hes; Louk M W Snoeren; Jaleesa K Timmer; Christiaan C P Mout; Gijsbert H Bol; Alexis N Kotte; Wietse S C Eppinga; Martijn Intven; Bas W Raaymakers; Ina M Jürgenliemk-Schulz Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-06-30
Authors: Daan M de Muinck Keizer; Jochem R N van der Voort van Zyp; Eline N de Groot-van Breugel; Bas W Raaymakers; Jan J W Lagendijk; Hans C J de Boer Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-07-25
Authors: Thomas Willigenburg; Cornel Zachiu; Jan J W Lagendijk; Jochem R N van der Voort van Zyp; Hans C J de Boer; Bas W Raaymakers Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-02-17
Authors: Samuel L Mulder; Jolien Heukelom; Brigid A McDonald; Lisanne Van Dijk; Kareem A Wahid; Keith Sanders; Travis C Salzillo; Mehdi Hemmati; Andrew Schaefer; Clifton D Fuller Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-04-10 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Casper Gammelmark Muurholm; Thomas Ravkilde; Robin De Roover; Simon Skouboe; Rune Hansen; Wouter Crijns; Tom Depuydt; Per R Poulsen Journal: Med Phys Date: 2022-04-25 Impact factor: 4.506
Authors: Jennifer Dang; Vickie Kong; Winnie Li; Inmaculada Navarro; Jeff D Winter; Victor Malkov; Alejandro Berlin; Charles Catton; Jerusha Padayachee; Srinivas Raman; Padraig Warde; Peter Chung Journal: Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-08-27
Authors: Frederik R Teunissen; Jochem R N van der Voort van Zyp; Eline N de Groot-van Breugel; Helena M Verkooijen; Ruud C Wortel; Johannes C J de Boer Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-09-13
Authors: Daniel Wegener; Daniel Zips; Cihan Gani; Simon Boeke; Konstantin Nikolaou; Ahmed E Othman; Haidara Almansour; Frank Paulsen; Arndt-Christian Müller Journal: Radiologe Date: 2021-07-23 Impact factor: 0.635