Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Magnetic Resonance Imaging | Original Article

Head and neck radiotherapy on the MR linac: a multicenter planning challenge amongst MRIdian platform users

Authors: Madalyne Chamberlain, Jerome Krayenbuehl, Janita E. van Timmeren, Lotte Wilke, Nicolaus Andratschke, Helena Garcia Schüler, Stephanie Tanadini-Lang, Matthias Guckenberger, Panagiotis Balermpas

Published in: Strahlentherapie und Onkologie | Issue 12/2021

Abstract

Purpose

Purpose of this study is to evaluate plan quality on the MRIdian (Viewray Inc., Oakwood Village, OH, USA) system for head and neck cancer (HNC) through comparison of planning approaches of several centers.

Methods

A total of 14 planners using the MRIdian planning system participated in this treatment challenge, centrally organized by ViewRay, for one contoured case of oropharyngeal carcinoma with standard constraints for organs at risk (OAR). Homogeneity, conformity, sparing of OARs, and other parameters were evaluated according to The International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) recommendations anonymously, and then compared between centers. Differences amongst centers were assessed by means of Wilcoxon test. Each plan had to fulfil hard constraints based on dose–volume histogram (DVH) parameters and delivery time. A plan quality metric (PQM) was evaluated. The PQM was defined as the sum of 16 submetrics characterizing different DVH goals.

Results

For most dose parameters the median score of all centers was higher than the threshold that results in an ideal score. Six participants achieved the maximum number of points for the OAR dose parameters, and none had an unacceptable performance on any of the metrics. Each planner was able to achieve all the requirements except for one which exceeded delivery time. The number of segments correlated to improved PQM and inversely correlated to brainstem D_0.1cc and to Planning Target Volume1 (PTV) D_0.1cc. Total planning experience inversely correlated to spinal canal dose.

Conclusion

Magnetic Resonance Image (MRI) linac-based planning for HNC is already feasible with good quality. Generally, an increased number of segments and increasing planning experience are able to provide better results regarding planning quality without significantly prolonging overall treatment time.

Available only for authorised users

Leitzen C, Wilhelm-Buchstab T, Müdder T et al (2018) Patient positioning in head and neck cancer : setup variations and safety margins in helical tomotherapy. Strahlenther Onkol 194:386–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-018-1265-7CrossRefPubMed

Qi XS, Hu AY, Lee SP et al (2013) Assessment of interfraction patient setup for head-and-neck cancer intensity modulated radiation therapy using multiple computed tomography-based image guidance. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 86:432–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.01.022CrossRefPubMed

Stoiber EM, Bougatf N, Teske H et al (2017) Analyzing human decisions in IGRT of head-and-neck cancer patients to teach image registration algorithms what experts know. Radiat Oncol 12:104. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-017-0842-8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Bell K, Licht N, Rübe C, Dzierma Y (2018) Image guidance and positioning accuracy in clinical practice: influence of positioning errors and imaging dose on the real dose distribution for head and neck cancer treatment. Radiat Oncol 13:190. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-018-1141-8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Heukelom J, Fuller CD (2019) Head and neck cancer adaptive radiation therapy (ART): conceptual considerations for the informed clinician. Semin Radiat Oncol 29:258–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semradonc.2019.02.008CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Nutting CM, Morden JP, Harrington KJ et al (2011) Parotid-sparing intensity modulated versus conventional radiotherapy in head and neck cancer (PARSPORT): a phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 12:127–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70290-4CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Hvid CA, Elstrøm UV, Jensen K, Grau C (2018) Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) for adaptive image guided head and neck radiation therapy. Acta Oncol 57:552–556. https://doi.org/10.1080/0284186X.2017.1398414CrossRefPubMed

Spezi E, Downes P, Jarvis R et al (2012) Patient-specific three-dimensional concomitant dose from cone beam computed tomography exposure in image-guided radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 83:419–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.06.1972CrossRefPubMed

Mutic S, Dempsey JF (2014) The ViewRay system: magnetic resonance-guided and controlled radiotherapy. Semin Radiat Oncol 24:196–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semradonc.2014.02.008CrossRefPubMed

10.

Biau J, Lapeyre M, Troussier I et al (2019) Selection of lymph node target volumes for definitive head and neck radiation therapy: a 2019 Update. Radiother Oncol 134:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2019.01.018CrossRefPubMed

11.

Grégoire V, Evans M, Le Q‑T et al (2018) Delineation of the primary tumour Clinical Target Volumes (CTV-P) in laryngeal, hypopharyngeal, oropharyngeal and oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma: AIRO, CACA, DAHANCA, EORTC, GEORCC, GORTEC, HKNPCSG, HNCIG, IAG-KHT, LPRHHT, NCIC CTG, NCRI, NRG Oncology, PHNS, SBRT, SOMERA, SRO, SSHNO, TROG consensus guidelines. Radiother Oncol 126:3–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2017.10.016CrossRefPubMed

12.

Navran A, Heemsbergen W, Janssen T, Hamming-Vrieze O, Jonker M, Zuur C, Verheij M, Remeijer P, Sonke J-J, van den Brekel M, Al-Mamgani A (2019) The impact of margin reduction on outcome and toxicity in head and neck cancer patients treated with image-guided volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Radiotherapy and Oncology 130:25–31CrossRef

13.

Brouwer CL, Steenbakkers RJHM, Bourhis J, Budach W, Grau C, Grégoire V, van Herk M, Lee A, Maingon P, Nutting C, O’Sullivan B, Porceddu SV, Rosenthal DI, Sijtsema NM, Langendijk JA (2015) CT-based delineation of organs at risk in the head and neck region: DAHANCA, EORTC, GORTEC, HKNPCSG, NCIC CTG, NCRI, NRG Oncology and TROG consensus guidelines. Radiotherapy and Oncology 117(1):83–90CrossRef

14.

Klüter S (2019) Technical design and concept of a 0.35 T MR-Linac. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 18:98–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctro.2019.04.007CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Esposito M, Masi L, Zani M et al (2019) SBRT planning for spinal metastasis: indications from a large multicentric study. Strahlenther Onkol 195:226–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-018-1383-2CrossRefPubMed

16.

Moustakis C, Blanck O, Ebrahimi Tazehmahalleh F et al (2017) Planning benchmark study for SBRT of early stage NSCLC : results of the DEGRO working group stereotactic radiotherapy. Strahlenther Onkol 193:780–790. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-017-1151-8CrossRefPubMed

17.

Moustakis C, Chan MKH, Kim J et al (2018) Treatment planning for spinal radiosurgery : a competitive multiplatform benchmark challenge. Strahlenther Onkol 194:843–854. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-018-1314-2CrossRefPubMed

18.

Giglioli FR, Garibaldi C, Blanck O et al (2020) Dosimetric multicenter planning comparison studies for stereotactic body radiation therapy: methodology and future perspectives. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 106:403–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.10.041CrossRefPubMed

19.

Verbakel WFAR, Doornaert PAH, Raaijmakers CPJ et al (2019) Targeted intervention to improve the quality of head and neck radiation therapy treatment planning in the Netherlands: short and long-term impact. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 105:514–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.07.005CrossRefPubMed

20.

Studenski MT, Bar-Ad V, Siglin J et al (2013) Clinical experience transitioning from IMRT to VMAT for head and neck cancer. Med Dosim 38:171–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meddos.2012.10.009CrossRefPubMed

21.

Menten MJ, Fast MF, Nill S et al (2016) Lung stereotactic body radiotherapy with an MR-linac—quantifying the impact of the magnetic field and real-time tumor tracking. Radiother Oncol 119:461–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2016.04.019CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Saenz DL, Paliwal BR, Bayouth JE (2014) A dose homogeneity and conformity evaluation between ViewRay and pinnacle-based linear accelerator IMRT treatment plans. J Med Phys 39:64–70. https://doi.org/10.4103/0971-6203.131277CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

van de Schoot AJAJ, van den Wollenberg W, Carbaat C et al (2019) Evaluation of plan quality in radiotherapy planning with an MR-linac. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 10:19–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phro.2019.04.004CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Tetar S, Bruynzeel A, Bakker R et al (2018) Patient-reported outcome measurements on the tolerance of magnetic resonance imaging-guided radiation therapy. Cureus 10:e2236. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.2236CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Merna C, Rwigema J‑CM, Cao M et al (2016) A treatment planning comparison between modulated tri-cobalt-60 teletherapy and linear accelerator-based stereotactic body radiotherapy for central early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. Med Dosim 41:87–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meddos.2015.09.002CrossRefPubMed

26.

Henke L, Kashani R, Yang D et al (2016) Simulated online adaptive magnetic resonance-guided stereotactic body radiation therapy for the treatment of oligometastatic disease of the abdomen and central thorax: characterization of potential advantages. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 96:1078–1086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.08.036CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Chen AM, Cao M, Hsu S et al (2017) Magnetic resonance imaging guided reirradiation of recurrent and second primary head and neck cancer. Adv Radiat Oncol 2:167–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2017.02.002CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Raghavan G, Kishan AU, Cao M, Chen AM (2016) Anatomic and dosimetric changes in patients with head and neck cancer treated with an integrated MRI-tri-(60)Co teletherapy device. Br J Radiol 89:20160624. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20160624CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Chen AM, Hsu S, Lamb J et al (2018) MRI-guided radiotherapy for head and neck cancer: initial clinical experience. Clin Transl Oncol 20:160–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-017-1704-4CrossRefPubMed

30.

Levin-Epstein R, Cao M, Lee P et al (2018) Magnetic resonance-guided inter-fraction monitoring opens doors to delivering safer reirradiation: an illustrative case report and discussion. Cureus 10:e2479. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.2479CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Li HH, Rodriguez VL, Green OL et al (2015) Patient-specific quality assurance for the delivery of (60)Co intensity modulated radiation therapy subject to a 0.35‑T lateral magnetic field. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 91:65–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.09.008CrossRefPubMed

32.

Thomas DH, Santhanam A, Kishan AU et al (2018) Initial clinical observations of intra- and interfractional motion variation in. Br J Radiol 91:20170522. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20170522CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Cai B, Li H, Yang D et al (2017) Performance of a multi leaf collimator system for MR-guided radiation therapy. Med Phys 44:6504–6514. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.12571CrossRefPubMed

34.

Ginn JS, Agazaryan N, Cao M et al (2017) Characterization of spatial distortion in a 0.35 T MRI-guided radiotherapy system. Phys Med Biol 62:4525–4540. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/aa6e1aCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Hu Y, Rankine L, Green OL et al (2015) Characterization of the onboard imaging unit for the first clinical magnetic resonance image guided radiation therapy system. Med Phys 42:5828–5837. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4930249CrossRefPubMed

36.

Andreozzi JM, Mooney KE, Brůža P et al (2018) Remote Cherenkov imaging-based quality assurance of a magnetic resonance image-guided radiotherapy system. Med Phys 45:2647–2659. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.12919CrossRefPubMed

37.

Mein S, Rankine L, Adamovics J et al (2017) Development of a 3D remote dosimetry protocol compatible with MRgIMRT. Med Phys 44:6018–6028. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.12565CrossRefPubMed

38.

Wang Y, Wang M, Jiang J (2017) An analysis of intrinsic variations of low-frequency shear wave speed in a stochastic tissue model: the first application for staging liver fibrosis. Phys Med Biol 62:1149–1171. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/aa51acCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Jain S, Popple R, Szychowski J et al (2019) Radiation oncologist characteristics and their association with outcomes in patients with head and neck cancer. Pract Radiat Oncol 9:e322–e330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prro.2019.01.001CrossRefPubMed

40.

Boero IJ, Paravati AJ, Xu B et al (2016) Importance of radiation oncologist experience among patients with head-and-neck cancer treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy. J Clin Oncol 34:684–690. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.63.9898CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Yang GQ, Mhaskar R, Rishi A et al (2018) Intensity-modulated radiotherapy at high-volume centers improves survival in patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma receiving trimodality therapy. Dis Esophagus. https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doy124CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

42.

Bratengeier K, Gainey MB, Flentje M (2011) Fast IMRT by increasing the beam number and reducing the number of segments. Radiat Oncol 6:170. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-6-170CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

43.

Sutton J, Kabiru D, Neu M et al (2012) Define baseline levels of segments per beam for intensity-modulated radiation therapy delivery for brain, head and neck, thoracic, abdominal, and prostate applications. Med Dosim 37:15–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meddos.2010.12.006CrossRefPubMed

44.

Li T, Scheuermann R, Lin A et al (2018) Impact of multi-leaf collimator parameters on head and neck plan quality and delivery: a comparison between halcyon^TM and Truebeam® treatment delivery systems. Cureus 10:e3648. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.3648CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

45.

Villaggi E, Hernandez V, Fusella M et al (2019) Plan quality improvement by DVH sharing and planner’s experience: results of a SBRT multicentric planning study on prostate. Phys Med 62:73–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2019.05.003CrossRefPubMed

46.

Hernandez V, Saez J, Pasler M et al (2018) Comparison of complexity metrics for multi-institutional evaluations of treatment plans in radiotherapy. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 5:37–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phro.2018.02.002CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

47.

Esposito M, Villaggi E, Bresciani S et al (2020) Estimating dose delivery accuracy in stereotactic body radiation therapy: A review of in-vivo measurement methods. Radiother Oncol 149:158–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2020.05.014CrossRefPubMed

Title: Head and neck radiotherapy on the MR linac: a multicenter planning challenge amongst MRIdian platform users
Authors: Madalyne Chamberlain
Jerome Krayenbuehl
Janita E. van Timmeren
Lotte Wilke
Nicolaus Andratschke
Helena Garcia Schüler
Stephanie Tanadini-Lang
Matthias Guckenberger
Panagiotis Balermpas
Publication date: 01-12-2021
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Radiotherapy
Published in: Strahlentherapie und Onkologie / Issue 12/2021
Print ISSN: 0179-7158
Electronic ISSN: 1439-099X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-021-01771-8

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Head and neck radiotherapy on the MR linac: a multicenter planning challenge amongst MRIdian platform users

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 12/2021

Successful salvage of recurrent leptomeningeal disease in large cell neuroendocrine lung cancer with stereotactic radiotherapy

Preclinical evaluation of PEGylated liposomal doxorubicin as an effective radiosensitizer in chemoradiotherapy for lung cancer

Postsurgical geometrical variations of tumor bed and brainstem during photon and proton therapy for pediatric tumors of the posterior fossa: dosimetric impact and predictive factors

A novel lung-avoidance planning strategy based on 4DCT ventilation imaging and CT density characteristics for stage III non-small-cell lung cancer patients

Evaluation of two modalities of perioperative treatment in the management of extremity and truncal soft tissue sarcomas: neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy and sequential treatment

Innovative radiation oncology Together – Precise, Personalized, Human