No abstract

Objective: To investigate the necessity of performing MRI in the radiotherapy position when using MRI for prostatic radiotherapy. Methods: 20 prostate patients received a CT, diagnostic MRI and an MRI scan in the radiotherapy position. The quality of registration between CT and MRI was compared between the two MRI set-ups. The prostate and seminal vesicles were contoured using all scans and intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans were generated. Changes in the target volume and IMRT plans were investigated. Two-tailed paired Student's ttests determined the statistical significance.Results: There was a decrease in the mean distance from the centre of the bony anatomy between CT and MRI (from 3.9 to 1.9 mm, p-value,0.0001) when the MRI scan was acquired in the radiotherapy position. Assuming that registering CT with an MRI scan in the radiotherapy position is the gold standard for delineating the prostate and seminal vesicles, using a planning target volume delineated on the CT with a diagnostic MRI scan viewed separately, resulted in a mean conformation number of 0.80 instead of the expected 0.98 (p,0.0001). Conclusion: By registering CT with an MRI scan in the radiotherapy position, there is a statistically significant improvement in the registration and IMRT quality. Advances in knowledge: To achieve an acceptable registration and IMRT quality in prostatic radiotherapy, neither CT with a separate diagnostic MRI nor CT registered to a diagnostic MRI will suffice. Instead, a CT registered with an MRI in the radiotherapy position should be used.

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to demonstrate how magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) patient position protocols influence registration quality in patients with oropharyngeal cancer undergoing radical radiotherapy and the consequences for gross tumour volume (GTV) definition and radiotherapy planning.Methods and materialsTwenty-two oropharyngeal patients underwent a computed tomography (CT), a diagnostic MRI (MRID) and an MRI in the radiotherapy position within an immobilization mask (MRIRT). Clinicians delineated the GTV on the CT viewing the MRID separately (GTVC); on the CT registered to MRID (GTVD) and on the CT registered to MRIRT (GTVRT). Planning target volumes (PTVs) were denoted similarly. Registration quality was assessed by measuring disparity between structures in the three set-ups. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) radiotherapy planning was performed for PTVC, PTVD and PTVRT. To determine the dose received by the reference PTVRT, we optimized for PTVC and PTVD while calculating the dose to PTVRT. Statistical significance was determined using the two-tailed Mann–Whitney or two-tailed paired student t-tests.ResultsA significant improvement in registration accuracy was found between CT and MRIRT versus the MRID measuring distances from the centre of structures (geometric mean error of 2.2 mm versus 6.6 mm). The mean GTVC (44.1 cm3) was significantly larger than GTVD (33.7 cm3, p value = 0.027) or GTVRT (30.5 cm3, p value = 0.014). When optimizing the VMAT plans for PTVC and investigating the mean dose to PTVRT neither the dose to 99% (58.8%) nor 95% of the PTV (84.7%) were found to meet the required clinical dose constraints of 90% and 95% respectively. Similarly, when optimizing for PTVD the mean dose to PTVRT did not meet clinical dose constraints for 99% (14.9%) nor 95% of the PTV (66.2%). Only by optimizing for PTVRT were all clinical dose constraints achieved.ConclusionsWhen oropharyngeal patients MRI scans are performed in the radiotherapy position there are significant improvements in CT-MR image registration, target definition and PTV dose coverage.

Dosimetrical characteristics of 11 Varian a-Si-500 electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs) in clinical use for periods ranging between 10 and 86 months were investigated for consistency of performance and portal dosimetry implications. Properties studied include short-term reproducibility, signal linearity with monitor units, response to reference beam, signal uniformity across the detector panel, signal dependence on field size, dose-rate influence, memory effects and image profiles as a function of monitor units. The EPID measurements were also compared with those of the ionization chambers' to ensure stability of the linear accelerators. Depending on their clinical installation date, the EPIDs were interfaced with one of the two different acquisition control software packages, IAS2/IDU-II or IAS3/IDU-20. Both the EPID age and image acquisition system influenced the dosimetric characteristics with the newer version (IAS3 with IDU-20) giving better data reproducibility and linearity fit than the older version (IAS2 with IDU-II). The relative signal response (uniformity) after 50 MU was better than 95% of the central value and independent of detector. Sensitivity for all EPIDs reduced continuously with increasing dose rates for the newer image acquisition software. In the dose-rate range 100-600 MU min(-1), the maximum variation in sensitivity ranged between 1 and 1.8% for different EPIDs. For memory effects, the increase in the measured signal at the centre of the irradiated field for successive images was within 1.8% and 1.0% for the older and newer acquisition systems, respectively. Image profiles acquired at a lower MU in the radial plane (gun-target) had gradients in measured pixel values of up to 25% for the older system. Detectors with software/hardware versions IAS3/IDU-20 have a high degree of accuracy and are more suitable for routine quantitative IMRT dosimetrical verification.