BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Magnetic resonance (MR)-guided linear accelerator (MR-Linac) systems have changed radiotherapy workflows. The addition of daily online contour adaptation allows for higher precision treatment, but also increases the workload of those involved. We train radiation therapists (RTTs) to perform daily online contour adaptation for MR-Linac treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate these prostate contours by performing an interfraction and interobserver analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical target volume (CTV) contours generated online by RTTs from 30 low-intermediate risk PCa patients, treated with 5x7.25 Gy, were used. Two physicians (Observers) judged the RTTs contours and performed adaptations when necessary. Interfraction relative volume differences between the first and the subsequent fractions were calculated for the RTTs, Observer 1, and Observer 2. Additionally, interobserver dice's similarity coefficient (DSC) for fraction 2-5 was calculated with the RTTs- and physician-adapted contours. Clinical acceptability of the RTTs contours was judged by a third observer. RESULTS: Mean (SD) online contour adaptation time was 12.6 (±3.8) minutes and overall median (interquartile range [IQR]) relative volume difference was 9.3% (4.4-13.0). Adaptations by the observers were mostly performed at the apex and base of the prostate. Median (IQR) interobserver DSC between RTTs and Observer 1, RTTs and Observer 2, and Observer 1 and 2 was 0.99 (0.98-1.00), 1.00 (0.98-1.00), and 1.00 (0.99-1.00), respectively. Contours were acceptable for clinical use in 113 (94.2%) fractions. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) analysis showed significant CTV underdosage for one of the seven identified outliers. CONCLUSION: Daily online contour adaptation by RTTs is clinically feasible for MR-Linac treatment of PCa.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Magnetic resonance (MR)-guided linear accelerator (MR-Linac) systems have changed radiotherapy workflows. The addition of daily online contour adaptation allows for higher precision treatment, but also increases the workload of those involved. We train radiation therapists (RTTs) to perform daily online contour adaptation for MR-Linac treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate these prostate contours by performing an interfraction and interobserver analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical target volume (CTV) contours generated online by RTTs from 30 low-intermediate risk PCa patients, treated with 5x7.25 Gy, were used. Two physicians (Observers) judged the RTTs contours and performed adaptations when necessary. Interfraction relative volume differences between the first and the subsequent fractions were calculated for the RTTs, Observer 1, and Observer 2. Additionally, interobserver dice's similarity coefficient (DSC) for fraction 2-5 was calculated with the RTTs- and physician-adapted contours. Clinical acceptability of the RTTs contours was judged by a third observer. RESULTS: Mean (SD) online contour adaptation time was 12.6 (±3.8) minutes and overall median (interquartile range [IQR]) relative volume difference was 9.3% (4.4-13.0). Adaptations by the observers were mostly performed at the apex and base of the prostate. Median (IQR) interobserver DSC between RTTs and Observer 1, RTTs and Observer 2, and Observer 1 and 2 was 0.99 (0.98-1.00), 1.00 (0.98-1.00), and 1.00 (0.99-1.00), respectively. Contours were acceptable for clinical use in 113 (94.2%) fractions. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) analysis showed significant CTV underdosage for one of the seven identified outliers. CONCLUSION: Daily online contour adaptation by RTTs is clinically feasible for MR-Linac treatment of PCa.
Authors: D M de Muinck Keizer; L G W Kerkmeijer; T Willigenburg; A L H M W van Lier; M D den Hartogh; J R N van der Voort van Zyp; E N de Groot-van Breugel; B W Raaymakers; J J W Lagendijk; J C J de Boer Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2020-07-03 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Mark J Gooding; Annamarie J Smith; Maira Tariq; Paul Aljabar; Devis Peressutti; Judith van der Stoep; Bart Reymen; Daisy Emans; Djoya Hattu; Judith van Loon; Maud de Rooy; Rinus Wanders; Stephanie Peeters; Tim Lustberg; Johan van Soest; Andre Dekker; Wouter van Elmpt Journal: Med Phys Date: 2018-10-12 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: B W Raaymakers; I M Jürgenliemk-Schulz; G H Bol; M Glitzner; A N T J Kotte; B van Asselen; J C J de Boer; J J Bluemink; S L Hackett; M A Moerland; S J Woodings; J W H Wolthaus; H M van Zijp; M E P Philippens; R Tijssen; J G M Kok; E N de Groot-van Breugel; I Kiekebosch; L T C Meijers; C N Nomden; G G Sikkes; P A H Doornaert; W S C Eppinga; N Kasperts; L G W Kerkmeijer; J H A Tersteeg; K J Brown; B Pais; P Woodhead; J J W Lagendijk Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2017-11-14 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Geert M Villeirs; Koen Van Vaerenbergh; Luc Vakaet; Samuel Bral; Filip Claus; Wilfried J De Neve; Koenraad L Verstraete; Gert O De Meerleer Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Alan M Nichol; Kristy K Brock; Gina A Lockwood; Douglas J Moseley; Tara Rosewall; Padraig R Warde; Charles N Catton; David A Jaffray Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-11-02 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Dale Roach; Lois C Holloway; Michael G Jameson; Jason A Dowling; Angel Kennedy; Peter B Greer; Michele Krawiec; Robba Rai; Jim Denham; Jeremiah De Leon; Karen Lim; Megan E Berry; Rohen T White; Sean A Bydder; Hendrick T Tan; Jeremy D Croker; Alycea McGrath; John Matthews; Robert J Smeenk; Martin A Ebert Journal: J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-01-04 Impact factor: 1.735
Authors: Irene M Lips; Uulke A van der Heide; Karin Haustermans; Emile N J T van Lin; Floris Pos; Stefan P G Franken; Alexis N T J Kotte; Carla H van Gils; Marco van Vulpen Journal: Trials Date: 2011-12-05 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Dennis Winkel; Gijsbert H Bol; Petra S Kroon; Bram van Asselen; Sara S Hackett; Anita M Werensteijn-Honingh; Martijn P W Intven; Wietse S C Eppinga; Rob H N Tijssen; Linda G W Kerkmeijer; Hans C J de Boer; Stella Mook; Gert J Meijer; Jochem Hes; Mirjam Willemsen-Bosman; Eline N de Groot-van Breugel; Ina M Jürgenliemk-Schulz; Bas W Raaymakers Journal: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-04-02
Authors: Lisanne G M Zwart; Francisca Ong; Liselotte A Ten Asbroek; Erik B van Dieren; Siete A Koch; Anand Bhawanie; Elisabeth de Wit; Judith J Dasselaar Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-05-14
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: Marnix J A Rasing; Gonda G Sikkes; Nicole G P M Vissers; Alexis N T J Kotte; Joske H Boudewijn; Patricia A H Doornaert; Wietse S C Eppinga; Martijn Intven; Reijer H A Rutgers; Annick Scheeren; Louk M W Snoeren; Tiny B Vlig; Jochem R N van der Voort van Zyp; Lisa M Wijkhuizen; Peter S N van Rossum; Max Peters; Ina M Jürgenliemk-Schulz Journal: Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-08-24
Authors: Maaike T W Milder; Alba Magallon-Baro; Wilhelm den Toom; Erik de Klerck; Lorne Luthart; Joost J Nuyttens; Mischa S Hoogeman Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-07-28
Authors: R Lawes; H Barnes; T Herbert; A Mitchell; S Nill; U Oelfke; A Pathmanathan; G Adair Smith; K Sritharan; A Tree; H A McNair; A Dunlop Journal: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-09-08
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