Cone beam computed tomography for dose calculation quality assurance for magnetic resonance-only radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Magnetic Resonance (MR)-only prostate radiotherapy using synthetic Computed Tomography (sCT) algorithms with high dose accuracy has been clinically implemented. MR images can suffer from geometric distortions so Quality Assurance (QA) using an independent, geometrically accurate, image could be required. The first-fraction Cone Beam CT (CBCT) has demonstrated potential but has not been evaluated in a clinical MR-only pathway. This study evaluated the clinical use of CBCT for dose accuracy QA of MR-only radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 49 patients treated with MR-only prostate radiotherapy were divided into two cohorts. Cohort 1 (20 patients) received a back-up CT, whilst Cohort 2 (29 patients) did not. All patients were planned using the sCT and received daily CBCT imaging with MR-CBCT soft-tissue matching. Each CBCT was calibrated using a patient-specific stepwise Hounsfield Units-to-mass density curve. The treatment plan was recalculated on the first-fraction CBCT using the clinically applied soft-tissue match and the doses compared. For Cohort 1 the sCT was rigidly registered to the back-up CT, the plan recalculated and doses compared. RESULTS: Mean sCT-CBCT dose difference across both cohorts was - 0.6 ± 0.1 % (standard error of the mean, range - 2.3 % , 2.3 % ), with 47/49 patients within [ - 2 % , 1 % ]. The sCT-CBCT dose difference was systematically lower than the sCT-CT by - 0.7 ± 0.6 % ( ± 95 % limits of agreement). The mean sCT-CBCT gamma pass rate ( 2 % / 2 mm ) was 96.1 ± 0.4 % ( 85.4 % , 99.7 % ). CONCLUSIONS: CBCT-based dose accuracy QA for MR-only radiotherapy appears clinically feasible. There was a small systematic sCT-CBCT dose difference implying asymmetric tolerances of [ - 2 % , 1 % ] would be appropriate.

Are cone beam CT image matching skills transferrable from planning CT to planning MRI for MR-only prostate radiotherapy?

OBJECTIVES: Treatment verification for MR-only planning has focused on fiducial marker matching, however, these are difficult to identify on MR. An alternative is using the MRI for soft-tissue matching with cone beam computed tomography images (MR-CBCT). However, therapeutic radiographers have limited experience of MRI. This study aimed to assess transferability of therapeutic radiographers CT-CBCT prostate image matching skills to MR-CBCT image matching. METHODS: 23 therapeutic radiographers with 3 months-5 years' experience of online daily CT-CBCT soft-tissue matching prostate cancer patients participated. Each observer completed a baseline assessment of 10 CT-CBCT prostate soft-tissue image matches, followed by 10 MR-CBCT prostate soft-tissue image match assessment. A MRI anatomy training intervention was delivered and the 10 MR-CBCT prostate soft-tissue image match assessment was repeated. Limits of agreement were calculated as the disagreement of the observers with mean of all observers. RESULTS: Limits of agreement at CT-CBCT baseline were 2.8 mm, 2.8 mm, 0.7 mm (vertical, longitudinal, lateral). MR-CBCT matches prior to training were 3.3 mm, 3.1 mm, 0.9 mm, and after training 2.6 mm, 2.4 mm, 1.1 mm (vertical, longitudinal, lateral). Results show similar limits of agreement across the assessments, and variation reduced following the training intervention. CONCLUSION: This suggests therapeutic radiographers' prostate CBCT image matching skills are transferrable to a MRI planning scan, since MR-CBCT matching has comparable observer variation to CT-CBCT matching. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This is the first publication assessing interobserver MR-CBCT prostate soft tissue matching in an MR-only pathway.

The accuracy of Magnetic Resonance - Cone Beam Computed Tomography soft-tissue matching for prostate radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Magnetic Resonance (MR)-Only radiotherapy requires a method for matching image with on-treatment Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT). This study aimed to investigate the accuracy of MR-CBCT soft-tissue matching for prostate MR-only radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three patient cohorts were used, with all patients receiving MR and CT scans. For the first cohort (10 patients) the first fraction CBCT was automatically rigidly registered to the CT and MR scans and the MR-CT registration predicted using the MR-CBCT and CT-CBCT registrations. This was compared to the automatic MR-CT registration. For the second and third cohorts (five patients each) the first fraction CBCT was independently matched to the CT and MR by four radiographers, the MR-CBCT and CT-CBCT matches compared and the inter-observer variability assessed. The second cohort used a CT-based structure set and the third a MR-based structure set with the MR relabelled as a 'CT'. RESULTS: The mean difference between predicted and actual MR-CT registrations was Δ R All = - 0.1 ± 0.2 mm (s.e.m.). Radiographer MR-CBCT registrations were not significantly different to CT-CBCT, with mean differences in soft-tissue match ⩽ 0.2 mm and all except one difference ⩽ 3.3 mm . This was less than the MR-CBCT inter-observer limits of agreement [ 3.5 , 2.4 , 0.9 ] mm (vertical, longitudinal, lateral), which were similar ( ⩽ 0.5 mm ) to CT-CBCT. CONCLUSIONS: MR-CBCT soft-tissue matching is not significantly different to CT-CBCT. Relabelling the MR as a 'CT' does not appear to change the automatic registration. This suggests that MR-CBCT soft-tissue matching is feasible and accurate.