Online adaptive radiotherapy and dose delivery accuracy: A retrospective analysis.

PURPOSE: With online adaptive radiotherapy (ART), patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) testing cannot be performed prior to delivery of the adapted treatment plan. Consequently, the dose delivery accuracy of adapted plans (i.e., the ability of the system to interpret and deliver the treatment as planned) are not initially verified. We investigated the variation in dose delivery accuracy of ART on the MRIdian 0.35 T MR-linac (Viewray Inc., Oakwood, USA) between initial plans and their respective adapted plans, by analyzing PSQA results. METHODS: We considered the two main digestive localizations treated with ART (liver and pancreas). A total of 124 PSQA results acquired with the ArcCHECK (Sun Nuclear Corporation, Melbourne, USA) multidetector system were analyzed. PSQA result variations between the initial plans and their respective adapted plans were statistically investigated and compared with the variation in MU number. RESULTS: For the liver, limited deterioration in PSQA results was observed, and was within the limits of clinical tolerance (Initial = 98.2%, Adapted = 98.2%, p = 0.4503). For pancreas plans, only a few significant deteriorations extending beyond the limits of clinical tolerance were observed and were due to specific, complex anatomical configurations (Initial = 97.3%, Adapted = 96.5%, p = 0.0721). In parallel, we observed an influence of the increase in MU number on the PSQA results. CONCLUSION: We show that the dose delivery accuracy of adapted plans, in terms of PSQA results, is preserved in ART processes on the 0.35 T MR-linac. Respecting good practices, and minimizing the increase in MU number can help to preserve the accuracy of delivery of adapted plans as compared to their respective initial plans.

Characterisation of a split gradient coil design induced systemic imaging artefact on 0.35 T MR-linac systems.

Objective. The aim of this work was to highlight and characterize a systemic 'star-like' artefact inherent to the low field 0.35 T MRIdian MR-linac system, a magnetic resonance guided radiotherapy device. This artefact is induced by the original split gradients coils design. This design causes a surjection of the intensity gradient inZ(or head-feet) direction. This artefact appears on every sequence with phase encoding in the head-feet direction.Approach. Basic gradient echo sequence and clinical mandatory bSSFP sequence were used. Three setups using manufacturer provided QA phantoms were designed: two including the linearity control grid used for the characterisation and a third including two homogeneity control spheres dedicated to the artefact management in a more clinical like situation. The presence of the artefact was checked in four different MRidian sites. The tested parameters based on the literature were: phase encoding orientation, slab selectivity, excitation bandwidth (BWRF), acceleration factor (R) and phase/slab oversampling (PO/SO).Main results. The position of this artefact is constant and reproducible over the tested MRIdian sites. The typical singularity saturated dot or star is visible even with the 3D slab-selection enabled. A management is proposed by decreasing the BWRF, theRin head-feet direction and increasing the PO/SO. The oversampling can be optimized using a formula to anticipate the location of artefact in the field of view.Significance. The star-like artefact has been well characterised. A manageable solution comes at the cost of acquisition time. Observed in clinical cases, the artefact may degrade the images used for the RT planning and repositioning during the treatment unless corrected.

Inferring postimplant dose distribution of salvage permanent prostate implant (PPI) after primary PPI on CT images.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the dose distribution of additional radioactive seeds implanted during salvage permanent prostate implant (sPPI) after a primary permanent prostate implant (pPPI). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with localized prostate cancer were primarily implanted with iodine-125 seeds and had a dosimetric assessment based on day 30 postimplant CT (CT1). After an average of 6 years, these patients underwent sPPI followed by the same CT-based evaluation of dosimetry (CT2). Radioactive seeds on each CT were detected. The detected primary seeds on CT1 and CT2 were registered and then removed from CT2 referred as a modified CT2 (mCT2). Dosimetry evaluations (D90 and V100) of sPPI were performed with dedicated planning software on CT2 and mCT2. Indeed, prostate volume, D90, and V100 differences between CT2 and either CT1 or mCT2 were calculated, and values were expressed as mean (standard deviation). RESULTS: The mean prostate volume difference between sPPI and pPPI over the 6 patients was 9.85 (7.32) cm3. The average D90 and V100 assessed on CT2 were 486.5 Gy (58.9) and 100.0% (0.0), respectively, whereas it was 161.3 Gy (47.5) and 77.3% (25.2) on mCT2 (p = 0.031 each time). The average D90 the day of sPPI [145.4 Gy (11.2)] was not significantly different from that observed on mCT2 (p = 0.56). CONCLUSION: Postimplant D90 and V100 of sPPI after pPPI can be estimated on CT images after removing the primary seeds.

Does gap-free intensity modulated chemoradiation therapy provide a greater clinical benefit than 3D conformal chemoradiation in patients with anal cancer?

BACKGROUND: Chemoradiation is the standard treatment for anal cancer. 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) is usually split in 2 sequences with a therapeutic break (gap) in between. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) makes it possible to reduce treatment time by abandoning this gap. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes and toxicities in patients treated with either IMRT or 3D-CRT. METHODS: Between 2004 and 2011, the data of 51 patients treated with exclusive radiotherapy with or without concomitant chemotherapy for non-metastatic anal carcinoma were retrospectively analyzed. Twenty-seven patients were treated with 3D-CRT and 24 patients with IMRT, with a median dose delivered to the tumor of 59.4Gy [30.6-66.6], whatever the radiotherapy technique (p= 0.99). The median follow-up was 40 months [26.4-51.6]. RESULTS: There was no difference between the two groups for response to treatment (p= 0.46). Two-year overall survival, locoregional relapse-free survival and colostomy-free survival rates were 88.5%, 63% and 60.3%, respectively for the IMRT group and 81%, 76.5% and 81.1% for the 3D-CRT group (all NS). Ten patients (37%) in 3D-CRT and 11 patients (45.8%) in IMRT (p= 0.524) had grade 3 acute toxicity. No grade 4 toxicity occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that further investigations concerning the use of IMRT to treat cancer of the anus are warranted. IMRT makes it possible to remove the gap, but with no impact on the prognosis. Nonetheless, a longer follow-up is essential to determine whether or not IMRT has an impact on late toxicity, local control and survival compared with conventional 3D-CRT.