Clinical workflow for MR-only simulation and planning in prostate

Abstract

PurposeTo describe the details and experience of implementing a MR-only workflow in the clinic for simulation and planning of prostate cancer patients.MethodsForty-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.ResultsForty-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.ConclusionsMR-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.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13014-017-0854-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

MRI-only based radiation therapy of prostate cancer: workflow and early clinical experience

“…There have been studies regarding the automatic seed verification, but according to the recently published articles the most reliable method for gold seed identification is visual observation by a clinical personnel [23,24]. It is likely that future studies will introduce methods [18,19,25,26]. The success rate differences might be caused primarily by the gold marker visibility in the applied MR images and due to the use of different sCT methods.…”

Deep learning-based auto-segmentation of targets and organs-at-risk for magnetic resonance imaging only planning of prostate radiotherapy

“…MR-only simulation and planning for prostate radiotherapy has been routinely used at our institution since June 2016 [14,15]. Of all patients who were treated using a MR-only workflow, one hundred patients with confirmed prostate cancers scanned with axial T2w MRI were retrospectively analyzed and anonymized under an internal review board approved study.…”

Development and evaluation of a novel MR‐compatible pelvic end‐to‐end phantom

“…A benefit of this design method is that one can simulate dif- | 273 marked and in clinical use for the treatment of prostate cancer. 26,27 While the modular phantom does enable the introduction of 3D printed organs for female anatomy (uterus, cervix, etc. ), as other deformable phantoms have, 21 the current pelvic skeleton geometry does not accurately represent the average female anatomy.…”