Doemer A, Chetty IJ, Glide-Hurst C, Nurushev T, Hearshen D, Pantelic M, Traughber M, Kim J, Levin K, Elshaikh MA, Walker E, and Movsas B. Evaluating organ delineation, dose calculation and daily localization in an open-MRI simulation workflow for prostate cancer patients. Radiat Oncol 2015; 10(1):37.
BACKGROUND: This study describes initial testing and evaluation of a vertical-field open Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanner for the purpose of simulation in radiation therapy for prostate cancer. We have evaluated the clinical workflow of using open MRI as a sole modality for simulation and planning. Relevant results related to MRI alignment (vs. CT) reference dataset with Cone-Beam CT (CBCT) for daily localization are presented.
METHODS: Ten patients participated in an IRB approved study utilizing MRI along with CT simulation with the intent of evaluating the MRI-simulation process. Differences in prostate gland volume, seminal vesicles, and penile bulb were assessed with MRI and compared to CT. To evaluate dose calculation accuracy, bulk-density-assignments were mapped onto respective MRI datasets and treated IMRT plans were re-calculated. For image localization purposes, 400 CBCTs were re-evaluated with MRI as the reference dataset and daily shifts compared against CBCT-to-CT registration. Planning margins based on MRI/CBCT shifts were computed using the van Herk formalism.
RESULTS: Significant organ contour differences were noted between MRI and CT. Prostate volumes were on average 39.7% (p = 0.002) larger on CT than MRI. No significant difference was found in seminal vesicle volumes (p = 0.454). Penile bulb volumes were 61.1% higher on CT, without statistical significance (p = 0.074). MRI-based dose calculations with assigned bulk densities produced agreement within 1% with heterogeneity corrected CT calculations. The differences in shift positions for the cohort between CBCT-to-CT registration and CBCT-to-MRI registration are -0.15 ± 0.25 cm (anterior-posterior), 0.05 ± 0.19 cm (superior-inferior), and -0.01 ± 0.14 cm (left-right).
CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the potential of using an open-field MRI scanner as primary imaging modality for prostate cancer treatment planning simulation, dose calculations and daily image localization.
Medical Subject Headings
Algorithms; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Prognosis; Prostatic Neoplasms; Radiotherapy Dosage; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted; Seminal Vesicles; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Workflow