Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Radiation Oncology 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research

Clinical workflow for MR-only simulation and planning in prostate

Authors: Neelam Tyagi, Sandra Fontenla, Michael Zelefsky, Marcia Chong-Ton, Kyle Ostergren, Niral Shah, Lizette Warner, Mo Kadbi, Jim Mechalakos, Margie Hunt

Published in: Radiation Oncology | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To describe the details and experience of implementing a MR-only workflow in the clinic for simulation and planning of prostate cancer patients.

Methods

Forty-eight prostate cancer patients from June 2016 - Dec 2016 receiving external beam radiotherapy were scheduled to undergo MR-only simulation. MR images were acquired for contouring (T2w axial, coronal, sagittal), synthetic-CT generation (3D FFE-based) and fiducial identification (3D bFFE-based). The total acquisition time was 25 min. Syn-CT was generated at the console using commercial software called MRCAT. As part of acceptance testing of the MRCAT package, external laser positioning system QA (< 2 mm) and geometric fidelity QA (< 2 mm within 50 cm LR and 30 cm AP) were performed and baseline values were set. Our current combined CT + MR simulation process was modified to accommodate a MRCAT-based MR-only simulation workflow. An automated step-by-step process using a MIM™ workflow was created for contouring on the MR images. Patient setup for treatment was achieved by matching the MRCAT DRRs with the orthogonal KV radiographs based on either fiducial ROIs or bones. 3-D CBCTs were acquired and compared with the MR/syn-CT to assess the rectum and bladder filling compared to simulation conditions.

Results

Forty-two patients successfully underwent MR-only simulation and met all of our institutional dosimetric objectives that were developed based on a CT + MR-based workflow. The remaining six patients either had a hip prosthesis or their large body size fell outside of the geometric fidelity QA criteria and thus they were not candidates for MR-only simulation. A total time saving of ~15 min was achieved with MR-based simulation as compared to CT + MR-based simulation. An automated and organized MIM workflow made contouring on MR much easier, quicker and more accurate compared with combined CT + MR images because the temporal variations in normal structure was minimal. 2D and 3D treatment setup localization based on bones/fiducials using a MRCAT reference image was successfully achieved for all cases.

Conclusions

MR-only simulation and planning with equivalent or superior target delineation, planning and treatment setup localization accuracy is feasible in a clinical setting. Future work will focus on implementing a robust 3D isotropic acquisition for contouring.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
Philips Healthcare
 
Literature
1.
go back to reference Gao Z, et al. A study of prostate delineation referenced against a gold standard created from the visible human data. Radiother Oncol. 2007;85(2):239–46.CrossRefPubMed Gao Z, et al. A study of prostate delineation referenced against a gold standard created from the visible human data. Radiother Oncol. 2007;85(2):239–46.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Rasch C, et al. Definition of the prostate in CT and MRI: a multi-observer study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;43(1):57–66.CrossRefPubMed Rasch C, et al. Definition of the prostate in CT and MRI: a multi-observer study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;43(1):57–66.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Roach M 3rd. Is it time to change the standard of care from CT to MRI for defining the apex of the prostate to accomplish potency-sparing radiotherapy? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;61(1):1–2.CrossRefPubMed Roach M 3rd. Is it time to change the standard of care from CT to MRI for defining the apex of the prostate to accomplish potency-sparing radiotherapy? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;61(1):1–2.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference McLaughlin PW, et al. Radiographic and anatomic basis for prostate contouring errors and methods to improve prostate contouring accuracy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76(2):369–78.CrossRefPubMed McLaughlin PW, et al. Radiographic and anatomic basis for prostate contouring errors and methods to improve prostate contouring accuracy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76(2):369–78.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Nyholm T, et al. Variability in prostate and seminal vesicle delineations defined on magnetic resonance images, a multi-observer, −center and -sequence study. Radiat Oncol. 2013;8:126.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Nyholm T, et al. Variability in prostate and seminal vesicle delineations defined on magnetic resonance images, a multi-observer, −center and -sequence study. Radiat Oncol. 2013;8:126.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
go back to reference Paradis E, et al. Assessing the Dosimetric Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance-Generated Synthetic CT Images for Focal Brain VMAT Radiation Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015;93(5):1154–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Paradis E, et al. Assessing the Dosimetric Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance-Generated Synthetic CT Images for Focal Brain VMAT Radiation Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015;93(5):1154–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
go back to reference Korhonen J, et al. Clinical Experiences of Treating Prostate Cancer Patients With Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Only Based Radiation Therapy Treatment Planning Workflow. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016;96(2S):S225.CrossRef Korhonen J, et al. Clinical Experiences of Treating Prostate Cancer Patients With Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Only Based Radiation Therapy Treatment Planning Workflow. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016;96(2S):S225.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Greer PB, et al. A magnetic resonance imaging-based workflow for planning radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Med J Aust. 2011;194(4):S24–7.PubMed Greer PB, et al. A magnetic resonance imaging-based workflow for planning radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Med J Aust. 2011;194(4):S24–7.PubMed
10.
go back to reference Pinkawa M, et al. Application of a spacer gel to optimize three-dimensional conformal and intensity modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2011;100(3):436–41.CrossRefPubMed Pinkawa M, et al. Application of a spacer gel to optimize three-dimensional conformal and intensity modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2011;100(3):436–41.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Hatiboglu G, et al. Application technique: placement of a prostate-rectum spacer in men undergoing prostate radiation therapy. BJU Int. 2012;110(11 Pt B):E647–52.CrossRefPubMed Hatiboglu G, et al. Application technique: placement of a prostate-rectum spacer in men undergoing prostate radiation therapy. BJU Int. 2012;110(11 Pt B):E647–52.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Helle M, et al. Evaluation of DIXON based soft tissue and bone classification in the pelvis for MR-only-based radiation therapy planning. Proc Int Soc Mag. Reson Med. 2014;22:p112. Helle M, et al. Evaluation of DIXON based soft tissue and bone classification in the pelvis for MR-only-based radiation therapy planning. Proc Int Soc Mag. Reson Med. 2014;22:p112.
13.
go back to reference Köhler M, et al. MR-Only simulation for radiotherapy planning. Philips White Paper. Koninklijke Philips NV; 2015. Köhler M, et al. MR-Only simulation for radiotherapy planning. Philips White Paper. Koninklijke Philips NV; 2015.
Metadata
Title
Clinical workflow for MR-only simulation and planning in prostate
Authors
Neelam Tyagi
Sandra Fontenla
Michael Zelefsky
Marcia Chong-Ton
Kyle Ostergren
Niral Shah
Lizette Warner
Mo Kadbi
Jim Mechalakos
Margie Hunt
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Radiation Oncology / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1748-717X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-017-0854-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Radiation Oncology 1/2017 Go to the issue