Purpose: This project investigates the feasibility of implementation of MRI-only prostate planning in a prospective multi-center study. Method and Materials: A two-phase implementation model was utilized where centers performed retrospective analysis of MRI-only plans for five patients followed by prospective MRI-only planning for subsequent patients. Feasibility was assessed if at least 23/25 patients recruited to phase 2 received MRI-only treatment workflow. Whole-pelvic MRI scans (T2 weighted, isotropic 1.6 mm voxel 3D sequence) were converted to pseudo-CT using an established atlas-based method. Dose plans were generated using MRI contoured anatomy with pseudo-CT for dose calculation. A conventional CT scan was acquired subsequent to MRI-only plan approval for quality assurance purposes (QA-CT). 3D Gamma evaluation was performed between pseudo-CT calculated plan dose and recalculation on QA-CT. Criteria was 2%, 2 mm criteria with 20% low dose threshold. Gold fiducial marker positions for image guidance were compared between pseudo-CT and QA-CT scan prior to treatment. Results: All 25 patients recruited to phase 2 were treated using the MRI-only workflow. Isocenter dose differences between pseudo-CT and QA-CT were −0.04 ± 0.93% (mean ± SD). 3D Gamma dose comparison pass-rates were 99.7% ± 0.5% with mean gamma 0.22 ± 0.07. Results were similar for the two centers using two different scanners. All gamma comparisons exceeded the 90% pass-rate tolerance with a minimum gamma pass-rate of 98.0%. In all cases the gold fiducial markers were correctly identified on MRI and the distances of all seeds to centroid were within the tolerance of 1.0 mm of the distances on QA-CT (0.07 ± 0.41 mm), with a root-mean-square difference of 0.42 mm. Conclusion: The results support the hypothesis that an MRI-only prostate workflow can be implemented safely and accurately with appropriate quality assurance methods.

These results demonstrated that AV biofeedback significantly improved intra- and interfraction lung tumor motion consistency for lung cancer patients. These results demonstrate that AV biofeedback can facilitate consistent tumor motion, which is advantageous toward achieving more accurate medical imaging and radiation therapy procedures.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Background & Purpose Accurate delivery of radiotherapy is critical to achieve optimal treatment outcomes. Interfraction translational IGRT is now standard, and intrafraction motion management is becoming accessible. Some platforms can report both translational and rotational movements in real time. This study aims to quantify the dosimetric impact of observed intrafraction rotation of the prostate measured using monitoring software. Materials & Methods A dose grid resampling algorithm was used to model the dosimetric impact of prostate rotations for 20 patients on a SBRT prostate clinical trial. Translations were corrected before and during treatment, but rotations were not. Real time rotation data was acquired using KIM and a cumulative histogram analysis performed. Prostate volumes were rotated by the range of observed angles and used to calculate DVH data. Results The pitch axis had a higher range of observed rotations resulting in only 7 patients spending at least 90% of the beam on time across all fractions within rotation angles resulting in PTV D95%≥36Gy in this axis. The yaw and roll axes saw 17 and 15 patients respectively achieving this criterion. All but one of 20 patients exceeded CTV D98% ≥36Gy for all observed rotation angles. Conclusions Current CTV-PTV margins do not result in compromised CTV dose coverage due to inter and intrafraction prostate rotations in the absence of other uncertainties. Reduced PTV dosing is due to the extremely conformal treatment delivery but is unlikely to be clinically deleterious. Prostate standard IGRT should continue to focus on correcting any observed translational movements. Margin reduction could be explored in conjunction with other uncertainties. Highlights • Prostate intrafraction rotations are typically non-symmetrical about the pitch axis • Observed rotations resulted in reduced PTV dose coverage for many patients • CTV coverage was maintained for virtually all observed rotations • Existing SBRT CTV-PTV margins sufficient to account for intrafraction rotations

Purpose: Kilovoltage intrafraction monitoring (KIM) allows for real-time image guidance for tracking tumor motion in six-degrees-of-freedom (6DoF) on a standard linear accelerator. This study assessed the geometric accuracy and precision of KIM used to guide patient treatments in the TROG 15.01 multi-institutional Stereotactic Prostate Ablative Radiotherapy with KIM trial and investigated factors affecting accuracy and precision. Methods: Fractions from 44 patients with prostate cancer treated using KIM-guided SBRT were analyzed across four institutions, on two different linear accelerator models and two different beam models (6 MV and 10 MV FFF). The geometric accuracy and precision of KIM was assessed from over 33 000 images (translation) and over 9000 images (rotation) by comparing the real-time measured motion to retrospective kV/MV triangulation. Factors potentially affecting accuracy, including contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of kV images and incorrect marker segmentation, were also investigated. Results: The geometric accuracy and precision did not depend on treatment institution, beam model or motion magnitude, but was correlated with gantry angle. The centroid geometric accuracy and precision of the KIM system for SABR prostate treatments was 0.0 AE 0.5, 0.0 AE 0.4 and 0.1 AE 0.3 mm for translation, and À0.1 AE 0.6°, À0.1 AE 1.4°and À0.1 AE 1.0°for rotation in the AP, LR and SI directions respectively. Centroid geometric error exceeded 2 mm for 0.05% of this dataset. No significant relationship was found between large geometric error and CNR or marker segmentation correlation. Conclusions: This study demonstrated the ability of KIM to locate the prostate with accuracy below other uncertainties in radiotherapy treatments, and the feasibility for KIM to be implemented across 4725