Radiation Oncology Journal

The Korean Society for Radiation Oncology (대한방사선종양학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Magnetic resonance image-based tomotherapy planning for prostate cancer

  • Jung, Sang Hoon (Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center) ;
  • Kim, Jinsung (Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Chung, Yoonsun (Department of Nuclear Engineering, Hanyang University) ;
  • Keserci, Bilgin (Department of Radiology, School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia) ;
  • Pyo, Hongryull (Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Park, Hee Chul (Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Park, Won (Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
  • Received : 2020.02.28
  • Accepted : 2020.03.20
  • Published : 2020.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate and compare the feasibilities of magnetic resonance (MR) image-based planning using synthetic computed tomography (sCT) versus CT (pCT)-based planning in helical tomotherapy for prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: A retrospective evaluation was performed in 16 patients with prostate cancer who had been treated with helical tomotherapy. MR images were acquired using a dedicated therapy sequence; sCT images were generated using magnetic resonance for calculating attenuation (MRCAT). The three-dimensional dose distribution according to sCT was recalculated using a previously optimized plan and was compared with the doses calculated using pCT. Results: The mean planning target volume doses calculated by sCT and pCT differed by 0.65% ± 1.11% (p = 0.03). Three-dimensional gamma analysis at a 2%/2 mm dose difference/distance to agreement yielded a pass rate of 0.976 (range, 0.658 to 0.986). Conclusion: The dose distribution results obtained using tomotherapy from MR-only simulations were in good agreement with the dose distribution results from simulation CT, with mean dose differences of less than 1% for target volume and normal organs in patients with prostate cancer.

Keywords

References

  1. Zemplenyi AT, Kalo Z, Kovacs G, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of intensity-modulated radiation therapy with normal and hypofractionated schemes for the treatment of localised prostate cancer. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2018;27:e12430. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12430
  2. Wortel RC, Incrocci L, Pos FJ, et al. Acute toxicity after image-guided intensity modulated radiation therapy compared to 3D conformal radiation therapy in prostate cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2015;91:737-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.12.017
  3. Pasquier D, Cavillon F, Lacornerie T, Touzeau C, Tresch E, Lartigau E. A dosimetric comparison of tomotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy in the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer with pelvic nodal radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013;85:549-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.03.046
  4. Rong Y, Tang G, Welsh JS, Mohiuddin MM, Paliwal B, Yu CX. Helical tomotherapy versus single-arc intensity-modulated arc therapy: a collaborative dosimetric comparison between two institutions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011;81:284-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.10.059
  5. Park JS, Park W, Pyo HR, et al. Suggestion for the prostatic fossa clinical target volume in adjuvant or salvage radiotherapy after a radical prostatectomy. Radiother Oncol 2014;110:240-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2014.01.001
  6. Hentschel B, Oehler W, Strauss D, Ulrich A, Malich A. Definition of the CTV prostate in CT and MRI by using CT-MRI image fusion in IMRT planning for prostate cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 2011;187:183-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-010-2179-1
  7. Smith WL, Lewis C, Bauman G, et al. Prostate volume contouring: a 3D analysis of segmentation using 3DTRUS, CT, and MR. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;67:1238-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.11.027
  8. Park H, Kim JY, Lee BM, et al. A comparison of preplan MRI and preplan CT-based prostate volume with intraoperative ultrasound-based prostate volume in real-time permanent brachytherapy. Radiat Oncol J 2011;29:199-205. https://doi.org/10.3857/roj.2011.29.3.199
  9. Rasch C, Barillot I, Remeijer P, Touw A, van Herk M, Lebesque JV. Definition of the prostate in CT and MRI: a multi-observer study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999;43:57-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(98)00351-4
  10. Buyyounouski MK, Horwitz EM, Price RA, Hanlon AL, Uzzo RG, Pollack A. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy with MRI simulation to reduce doses received by erectile tissue during prostate cancer treatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;58:743-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(03)01617-1
  11. Hanvey S, Sadozye AH, McJury M, Glegg M, Foster J. The influence of MRI scan position on image registration accuracy, target delineation and calculated dose in prostatic radiotherapy. Br J Radiol 2012;85:e1256. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/26802977
  12. Nyholm T, Nyberg M, Karlsson MG, Karlsson M. Systematisation of spatial uncertainties for comparison between a MR and a CT-based radiotherapy workflow for prostate treatments. Radiat Oncol 2009;4:54. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-4-54
  13. Eilertsen K, Vestad LN, Geier O, Skretting A. A simulation of MRI based dose calculations on the basis of radiotherapy planning CT images. Acta Oncol 2008;47:1294-302. https://doi.org/10.1080/02841860802256426
  14. Dowling JA, Sun J, Pichler P, et al. Automatic Substitute computed tomography generation and contouring for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-alone external beam radiation therapy from standard MRI sequences. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2015;93:1144-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.08.045
  15. Dowling JA, Lambert J, Parker J, et al. An atlas-based electron density mapping method for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-alone treatment planning and adaptive MRI-based prostate radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012;83:e5-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.11.056
  16. Korhonen J, Kapanen M, Keyrilainen J, Seppala T, Tenhunen M. A dual model HU conversion from MRI intensity values within and outside of bone segment for MRI-based radiotherapy treatment planning of prostate cancer. Med Phys 2014;41:011704. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4842575
  17. Kapanen M, Tenhunen M. T1/T2*-weighted MRI provides clinically relevant pseudo-CT density data for the pelvic bones in MRI-only based radiotherapy treatment planning. Acta Oncol 2013;52:612-8. https://doi.org/10.3109/0284186X.2012.692883
  18. Kohler M, Vaara T, Van Grootel M, Hoogeveen R, Kemppainen R, Renisch S. MR-only simulation for radiotherapy planning. In: White Paper: Philips MRCAT for prostate dose calculations using only MRI data. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Koninklijke Philips N.V.; 2015.
  19. Warner L. MO-D-PinS Room/Hall E-03: Ingenia MR-RT with MRCAT for MR-based radiotherapy simulation. Med Phys 2016;43(6Part30):3707. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4957267
  20. Geurts M. TomoTherapy DQA phantom creation [Internet]. San Francisco, CA: GitHub.com; 2015 [cited 2020 Mar 1]. Available from: https://github.com/mwgeurts/tomo_dqa_phantom.
  21. Choi JH, Lee D, O'Connor L, et al. Bulk anatomical density based dose calculation for patient-specific quality assurance of MRI-only prostate radiotherapy. Front Oncol 2019;Oct 2 9:997. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2019.00997
  22. Bratova I, Paluska P, Grepl J, et al. Validation of dose distribution computation on sCT images generated from MRI scans by Philips MRCAT. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2019;24:245-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpor.2019.02.001
  23. Tyagi N, Fontenla S, Zhang J, et al. Dosimetric and workflow evaluation of first commercial synthetic CT software for clinical use in pelvis. Phys Med Biol 2017;62:2961-75. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/62/8/2961
  24. Tyagi N, Fontenla S, Zelefsky M, et al. Clinical workflow for MR-only simulation and planning in prostate. Radiat Oncol 2017;12:119. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-017-0854-4
  25. Wang Y, Liu C, Zhang X, Deng W. Synthetic CT generation based on T2 weighted MRI of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) using a deep convolutional neural network (DCNN). Front Oncol 2019;9:1333. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2019.01333
  26. Liu Y, Lei Y, Wang T, et al. MRI-based treatment planning for liver stereotactic body radiotherapy: validation of a deep learning-based synthetic CT generation method. Br J Radiol 2019;92:20190067. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20190067
  27. Pulliam KB, Howell RM, Followill D, Luo D, White RA, Kry SF. The clinical impact of the couch top and rails on IMRT and arc therapy. Phys Med Biol 2011;56:7435-47. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/56/23/007
  28. Sun J, Dowling JA, Pichler P, et al. Investigation on the performance of dedicated radiotherapy positioning devices for MR scanning for prostate planning. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2015;16:4848.

Cited by

  1. Feasibility of Synthetic Computed Tomography Images Generated from Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scans Using Various Deep Learning Methods in the Planning of Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer vol.14, pp.1, 2022, https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14010040