Magnetic resonance image-guided adaptive radiotherapy enables safe CTV-to-PTV margin reduction in prostate cancer: a cine MRI motion study.

Introduction: We aimed to establish if stereotactic body radiotherapy to the prostate can be delivered safely using reduced clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume (PTV) margins on the 1.5T MR-Linac (MRL) (Elekta, Stockholm, Sweden), in the absence of gating. Methods: Cine images taken in 3 orthogonal planes during the delivery of prostate SBRT with 36.25 Gray (Gy) in 5 fractions on the MRL were analysed. Using the data from 20 patients, the percentage of radiotherapy (RT) delivery time where the prostate position moved beyond 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 mm in the left-right (LR), superior-inferior (SI), anterior-posterior (AP) and any direction was calculated. Results: The prostate moved less than 3 mm in any direction for 90% of the monitoring period in 95% of patients. On a per-fraction basis, 93% of fractions displayed motion in all directions within 3 mm for 90% of the fraction delivery time. Recurring motion patterns were observed showing that the prostate moved with shallow drift (most common), transient excursions and persistent excursions during treatment. Conclusion: A 3 mm CTV-PTV margin is safe to use for the treatment of 5 fraction prostate SBRT on the MRL, without gating. In the context of gating this work suggests that treatment time will not be extensively lengthened when an appropriate gating window is applied.

Prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy: quantifying intra-fraction motion and calculating margins using the new BIR geometric uncertainties in daily online IGRT recommendations.

OBJECTIVES: To measure the magnitude of intra-fraction prostate motion (IFPM) during stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT) delivered without intra-fraction tracking.To assess if current margins adequately cover IFPM.To derive margins using new guidelines. METHODS: IFPM was determined in 20 patients receiving 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions using 97 pairs of pre- and post-treatment cone beam CT (CBCT) scans. Correlation of time between CBCT acquisitions and motion was determined. The magnitude of IFPM was compared to current margins (6 mm isotropic, 3 mm posterior). Margins were calculated using IFPM alone and updated guidelines. RESULTS: The averaged 3D root mean square IFPM was 2.5 mm (4.2 mm). Independent prostate motion was predominantly posterior (70%) and inferior (63%). There was weak correlation between posterior (ρ = 0.38) and inferior (ρ = 0.36) IFPM and time. IFPM greater than current margins occurred in 8 of 97 fractions, six in the posterior direction. Margins were ≤3.5 mm using IFPM alone and ≤3.3 mm Left 3.5 mm Right, 7.0 mm inferior, 3.7 mm superior, 4.4 mm anterior and 3.3 mm posterior using new guidelines, compensating for motion in 92% of fractions. CONCLUSIONS: Our current SBRT margins account for 92% of IFPM, predominantly posterior and inferior. Although updated guidelines suggest an increase in margins inferiorly, any increase must be balanced against the possibility of increased toxicity, particularly if biochemical control and side-effects are favourable with current practice. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The difference between current clinical margins and those determined using updated guidance is demonstrated. The implications must be considered against clinical outcomes.

Evaluation of therapeutic radiographer contouring for magnetic resonance image guided online adaptive prostate radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The implementation of MRI-guided online adaptive radiotherapy has facilitated the extension of therapeutic radiographers' roles to include contouring, thus releasing the clinician from attending daily treatment. Following undergoing a specifically designed training programme, an online interobserver variability study was performed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 117 images from six patients treated on a MR Linac were contoured online by either radiographer or clinician and the same images contoured offline by the alternate profession. Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), mean distance to agreement (MDA), Hausdorff distance (HD) and volume metrics were used to analyse contours. Additionally, the online radiographer contours and optimised plans (n = 59) were analysed using the offline clinician defined contours. After clinical implementation of radiographer contouring, target volume comparison and dose analysis was performed on 20 contours from five patients. RESULTS: Comparison of the radiographers' and clinicians' contours resulted in a median (range) DSC of 0.92 (0.86 - 0.99), median (range) MDA of 0.98 mm (0.2-1.7) and median (range) HD of 6.3 mm (2.5-11.5) for all 117 fractions. There was no significant difference in volume size between the two groups. Of the 59 plans created with radiographer online contours and overlaid with clinicians' offline contours, 39 met mandatory dose constraints and 12 were acceptable because 95 % of the high dose PTV was covered by 95 % dose, or the high dose PTV was within 3 % of online plan. A clinician blindly reviewed the eight remaining fractions and, using trial quality assurance metrics, deemed all to be acceptable. Following clinical implementation of radiographer contouring, the median (range) DSC of CTV was 0.93 (0.88-1.0), median (range) MDA was 0.8 mm (0.04-1.18) and HD was 5.15 mm (2.09-8.54) respectively. Of the 20 plans created using radiographer online contours overlaid with clinicians' offline contours, 18 met the dosimetric success criteria, the remaining 2 were deemed acceptable by a clinician. CONCLUSION: Radiographer and clinician prostate and seminal vesicle contours on MRI for an online adaptive workflow are comparable and produce clinically acceptable plans. Radiographer contouring for prostate treatment on a MR-linac can be effectively introduced with appropriate training and evaluation. A DSC threshold for target structures could be implemented to streamline future training.

Interobserver variation of clinical oncologists compared to therapeutic radiographers (RTT) prostate contours on T2 weighted MRI.

The implementation of MRI-guided online adaptive radiotherapy has enabled extension of therapeutic radiographers' roles to include contouring. An offline interobserver variability study compared five radiographers' and five clinicians' contours on 10 MRIs acquired on a MR-Linac from 10 patients. All contours were compared to a "gold standard" created from an average of clinicians' contours. The median (range) DSC of radiographers' and clinicians' contours compared to the "gold standard" was 0.91 (0.86-0.96), and 0.93 (0.88-0.97) respectively illustrating non-inferiority of the radiographers' contours to the clinicians. There was no significant difference in HD, MDA or volume size between the groups.