Magnetic Resonance-Guided Prostate Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy With Daily Online Plan Adaptation: Results of a Prospective Phase 1 Trial and Supplemental Cohort

Empirical analysis of a plan-of-the-day strategy to approximate daily online reoptimization for prostate CBCT-guided adaptive radiotherapy

PURPOSE

Adaptive radiotherapy (ART) can improve the dose delivered to the patient in the presence of anatomic variations. However, the required time, effort, and clinical resources are intensive. This work analyzed a plan-of-the-day (POD) approach on clinical patients treated with online ART to explore implementations that balance dosimetric benefit and clinical resource cost.

METHODS

Eight patients treated to the prostate and proximal seminal vesicles with 26 fractions of CBCT-guided, daily online ART were retrospectively analyzed. With a plan library composed of daily adaptive plans from the initial week of treatment and the original plan, the effect of a POD approach starting the following week was investigated by simulating use of these previously generated plans under 3- and 6-degree-of-freedom patient alignment. The plan selected for each treatment was that from the library that maximized the Dice similarity coefficient of the clinical target volume with that of the current treatment fraction. The resulting distribution of several target coverage and organ-at-risk dose metrics are described relative to those achieved with the daily online reoptimized adaptive technique.

RESULTS

The values of target coverage and organ-at-risk dose metrics varied across patients and metrics. The POD schemas closely approximated the reference values from a fully reoptimized adaptive plan yet required less than 20% of the reoptimization effort. The POD schemas also had a much greater effect on target coverage metrics than 6-degree-of-freedom registration did. Organ-at-risk dose metrics also varied considerably across patients but did not exhibit a consistent dependence on the particular schema.

CONCLUSIONS

POD schemas were able to achieve the vast majority of the dosimetric benefit of daily online ART with a small fraction of the online reoptimization effort. Strategies like this might allow for more practical and strategic implementation of ART so as to benefit a greater number of patients.

MR-guided prostate SBRT in prostate cancer patients with low-volume metastatic disease

BACKGROUND

Recent data have found an overall survival benefit from prostate-directed radiotherapy in patients with low-volume metastatic prostate cancer. Prostate SBRT is an attractive treatment in this setting and may be optimised with MR-guided adaptive treatment. Here, we share our institutional experience delivering stereotactic MR-guided adaptive prostate SBRT (SMART) for patients with low-volume metastatic disease.

METHODS

We reviewed patients with low-volume metastatic disease who received prostate SMART from October 2019 to December 2021 on a 0.35T MR-Linac. The cohort included 14 patients. Genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities were assessed using CTCAE v 5.0. Progression was defined as a change in systemic or hormonal therapy regimen as a result of PSA rise or disease progression.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time was 29 months. Seven patients had hormone sensitive prostate cancer and 7 had castrate resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). 13 patients received 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions and one patient received 33 Gy in 5 fractions. At the time of last follow-up, 11 patients had not experienced progression and three patients, all with CRPC, had experienced progression. No patients developed local progression in the prostate after SMART. One patient experienced acute grade 2 urinary toxicity (7%) and no patients experienced acute grade 2 GI toxicity (0%). No grade 3 + acute toxicities were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Prostate SMART was found to be well tolerated and all patients had local control of disease within the prostate at the time of last follow-up. Prostate SMART may represent a low-risk and well-tolerated approach for delivering prostate-directed radiotherapy for patients with limited metastatic disease.

Acute toxicity comparison of magnetic resonance-guided adaptive versus fiducial or computed tomography-guided non-adaptive prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is gaining wider adoption for prostate cancer management but there remain significant toxicity risks when delivering prostate SBRT with standard techniques. Magnetic resonance-guided daily adaptive SBRT (MRg-A-SBRT) offers technological advantages in precision of radiation dose delivery, but the toxicity profile associated with MRg-A-SBRT compared to more standardly used fiducial or computed tomography-guided non-adaptive prostate SBRT (CT-SBRT) remains unknown.

METHODS

A meta-analysis to compare acute toxicity rates associated with MRg-A-SBRT and CT-SBRT for prostate cancer was performed in compliance with PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE (PubMed) and Google Scholar were searched for prospective studies of prostate SBRT that were published between January 1, 2018 and August 31, 2022. Random effects and fixed effects models were used to estimate pooled toxicity rates, and meta-regression was performed to compare toxicity between MRg-A-SBRT and CT-SBRT study groups.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine prospective studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria and included a total of 2547 patients. The pooled estimates for acute grade 2 or higher (G2+) genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity for MRg-A-SBRT were 16% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10%-24%) and 4% (95% CI, 2%-7%) and for CT-SBRT they were 28% (95% CI, 23%-33%) and 9% (95% CI, 6%-12%), respectively. On meta-regression, the odds ratios for acute G2+ GU and GI toxicities comparing MRg-A-SBRT and CT-SBRT were 0.56 (95% CI, 0.33-0.97, p = .04) and 0.40 (95% CI, 0.17-0.96, p = .04), respectively.

CONCLUSION

MRg-A-SBRT is associated with a significantly reduced risk of acute G2+ GU or GI toxicity compared to CT-SBRT. Longer follow-up will be needed to evaluate late toxicity and disease control outcomes.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Magnetic resonance imaging-guided daily adaptive prostate stereotactic radiation (MRg-A-SBRT) is a treatment that may allow for delivery of prostate radiation more precisely than other radiotherapy techniques, but it is unknown whether this reduces side effects compared to standardly used computed tomography-guided SBRT (CT-SBRT). In this systematic review and meta-analysis combining data from 29 clinical trials including 2547 patients, it was found that the risk of short-term urinary side effects was reduced by 44% and the risk of short-term bowel side effects was reduced by 60% with MRg-A-SBRT compared to CT-SBRT.

MRI-Guided Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: The Next Frontier in Ultrahypofractionation

Technological advances in MRI-guided radiation therapy (MRIgRT) have improved real-time visualization of the prostate and its surrounding structures over CT-guided radiation therapy. Seminal studies have demonstrated safe dose escalation achieved through ultrahypofractionation with MRIgRT due to planning target volume (PTV) margin reduction and treatment gating. On-table adaptation with MRI-based technologies can also incorporate real-time changes in target shape and volume and can reduce high doses of radiation to sensitive surrounding structures that may move into the treatment field. Ongoing clinical trials seek to refine ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy treatments for prostate cancer using MRIgRT. Though these studies have the potential to demonstrate improved biochemical control and reduced side effects, limitations concerning patient treatment times and operational workflows may preclude wide adoption of this technology outside of centers of excellence. In this review, we discuss the advantages and limitations of MRIgRT for prostate cancer, as well as clinical trials testing the efficacy and toxicity of ultrafractionation in patients with localized or post-prostatectomy recurrent prostate cancer.

Initial clinical experience building a dual CT- and MR-guided adaptive radiotherapy program

Introduction

Our institution was the first in the world to clinically implement MR-guided adaptive radiotherapy (MRgART) in 2014. In 2021, we installed a CT-guided adaptive radiotherapy (CTgART) unit, becoming one of the first clinics in the world to build a dual-modality ART clinic. Herein we review factors that lead to the development of a high-volume dual-modality ART program and treatment census over an initial, one-year period.

Materials and Methods

The clinical adaptive service at our institution is enabled with both MRgART (MRIdian, ViewRay, Inc, Mountain View, CA) and CTgART (ETHOS, Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) platforms. We analyzed patient and treatment information including disease sites treated, radiation dose and fractionation, and treatment times for patients on these two platforms. Additionally, we reviewed our institutional workflow for creating, verifying, and implementing a new adaptive workflow on either platform.

Results

From October 2021 to September 2022, 256 patients were treated with adaptive intent at our institution, 186 with MRgART and 70 with CTgART. The majority (106/186) of patients treated with MRgART had pancreatic cancer, and the most common sites treated with CTgART were pelvis (23/70) and abdomen (20/70). 93.0% of treatments on the MRgART platform were stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), whereas only 72.9% of treatments on the CTgART platform were SBRT. Abdominal gated cases were allotted a longer time on the CTgART platform compared to the MRgART platform, whereas pelvic cases were allotted a shorter time on the CTgART platform when compared to the MRgART platform. Our adaptive implementation technique has led to six open clinical trials using MRgART and seven using CTgART.

Conclusions

We demonstrate the successful development of a dual platform ART program in our clinic. Ongoing efforts are needed to continue the development and integration of ART across platforms and disease sites to maximize access and evidence for this technique worldwide.

Comparison of MR-soft tissue based versus biliary stent based alignment for image guidance in pancreatic SBRT

PURPOSE

The role of biliary stents in image-guided localization for pancreatic cancer has been inconclusive. To date, stent accuracy has been largely evaluated against implanted fiducials on cone beam computed tomography. We aim to use magnetic resonance (MR) soft tissue as a direct reference to examine the geometric and dosimetric impacts of stent-based localization on the newly available MR linear accelerator.

METHODS

Thirty pancreatic cancer patients (132 fractions) treated on our MR linear accelerator were identified to have a biliary stent. In our standard adaptive workflow, patients were set up to the target using soft tissue for image registration and structures were re-contoured on daily MR images. The original plan was then projected on treatment anatomy and dose predicted, followed by plan re-optimization and treatment delivery. These online predicted plans were soft tissue-based and served as reference plans. Retrospective image registration to the stent was performed offline to simulate stent-based localization and the magnitude of shifts was taken as the geometric accuracy of stent localization. New predicted plans were generated based on stent-alignment for dosimetric comparison.

RESULTS

Shifts were within 3 mm for 90% of the cases (mean = 1.5 mm); however, larger shifts up to 7.2 mm were observed. Average PTV coverage dropped by 1.1% with a maximum drop of 26.8%. The mean increase in V35Gy was 0.15, 0.05, 0.02, and 0.02 cc for duodenum, stomach, small bowel and large bowel, respectively. Stent alignment was significantly worse for all metrics except for small bowel (p = 0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall discrepancy between stent- and soft tissue-alignment was modest; however, large discrepancies were observed for select cases. While PTV coverage loss may be compensated for by using a larger margin, the increase in dose to gastrointestinal organs at risk may limit the role of biliary stents in image-guided localization.

Synthetic CT generation for MRI-guided adaptive radiotherapy in prostate cancer

Current MRI-guided adaptive radiotherapy (MRgART) workflows require fraction-specific electron and/or mass density maps, which are created by deformable image registration (DIR) between the simulation CT images and daily MR images. Manual density overrides may also be needed where DIR-produced results are inaccurate. This approach slows the adaptive radiotherapy workflow and introduces additional dosimetric uncertainties, especially in the presence of the magnetic field. This study investigated a method based on a conditional generative adversarial network (cGAN) with a multi-planar method to generate synthetic CT images from low-field MR images to improve efficiency in MRgART workflows for prostate cancer. Fifty-seven male patients, who received MRI-guided radiation therapy to the pelvis using the ViewRay MRIdian Linac, were selected. Forty-five cases were randomly assigned to the training cohort with the remaining twelve cases assigned to the validation/testing cohort. All patient datasets had a semi-paired DIR-deformed CT-sim image and 0.35T MR image acquired using a true fast imaging with steady-state precession (TrueFISP) sequence. Synthetic CT images were compared with deformed CT images to evaluate image quality and dosimetric accuracy. To evaluate the dosimetric accuracy of this method, clinical plans were recalculated on synthetic CT images in the MRIdian treatment planning system. Dose volume histograms for planning target volumes (PTVs) and organs-at-risk (OARs) and dose distributions using gamma analyses were evaluated. The mean-absolute-errors (MAEs) in CT numbers were 30.1 ± 4.2 HU, 19.6 ± 2.3 HU and 158.5 ± 26.0 HU for the whole pelvis, soft tissue, and bone, respectively. The peak signal-to-noise ratio was 35.2 ± 1.7 and the structural index similarity measure was 0.9758 ± 0.0035. The dosimetric difference was on average less than 1% for all PTV and OAR metrics. Plans showed good agreement with gamma pass rates of 99% and 99.9% for 1%/1 mm and 2%/2 mm, respectively. Our study demonstrates the potential of using synthetic CT images created with a multi-planar cGAN method from 0.35T MRI TrueFISP images for the MRgART treatment of prostate radiotherapy. Future work will validate the method in a large cohort of patients and investigate the limitations of the method in the adaptive workflow.

Adaptive magnetic resonance image guided radiation for intact localized prostate cancer how to optimally test a rapidly emerging technology

Introduction

Prostate cancer is a common malignancy for which radiation therapy (RT) provides an excellent management option with high rates of control and low toxicity. Historically RT has been given with CT based image guidance. Recently, magnetic resonance (MR) imaging capabilities have been successfully integrated with RT delivery platforms, presenting an appealing, yet complex, expensive, and time-consuming method of adapting and guiding RT. The precise benefits of MR guidance for localized prostate cancer are unclear. We sought to summarize optimal strategies to test the benefits of MR guidance specifically in localized prostate cancer.

Methods

A group of radiation oncologists, physicists, and statisticians were identified to collectively address this topic. Participants had a history of treating prostate cancer patients with the two commercially available MRI-guided RT devices. Participants also had a clinical focus on randomized trials in localized prostate cancer. The goal was to review both ongoing trials and present a conceptual focus on MRI-guided RT specifically in the definitive treatment of prostate cancer, along with developing and proposing novel trials for future consideration. Trial hypotheses, endpoints, and areas for improvement in localized prostate cancer that specifically leverage MR guided technology are presented.

Results

Multiple prospective trials were found that explored the potential of adaptive MRI-guided radiotherapy in the definitive treatment of prostate cancer. Different primary areas of improvement that MR guidance may offer in prostate cancer were summarized. Eight clinical trial design strategies are presented that summarize options for clinical trials testing the potential benefits of MRI-guided RT.

Conclusions

The number and scope of trials evaluating MRI-guided RT for localized prostate cancer is limited. Yet multiple promising opportunities to test this technology and potentially improve outcomes for men with prostate cancer undergoing definitive RT exist. Attention, in the form of multi-institutional randomized trials, is needed.

Magnetic Resonance-Guided Prostate Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy With Daily Online Plan Adaptation: Results of a Prospective Phase 1 Trial and Supplemental Cohort

Purpose

Stereotactic magnetic resonance (MR)-guided adaptive radiation therapy (SMART) for prostate cancer allows for MR-based contouring, real-time MR motion management, and daily plan adaptation. The clinical and dosimetric benefits associated with prostate SMART remain largely unknown.

Methods and Materials

A phase 1 trial of prostate SMART was conducted with primary endpoints of safety and feasibility. An additional cohort of patients similarly treated with prostate SMART were included in the analysis. SMART was delivered to 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions to the prostate ± seminal vesicles using the MRIdian linear accelerator system (ViewRay, Inc). Rates of urinary and gastrointestinal toxic effects and patient-reported outcome measures were assessed. Dosimetric analyses were conducted to evaluate the specific benefits of daily plan adaptation.

Results

The cohort included 22 patients (n = 10 phase 1, n = 12 supplemental) treated in 110 fractions. Median follow-up was 7.9 months. Acute grade 2 urinary and gastrointestinal toxic effects were observed in 22.7% and 4.5%, respectively, and 4.5% and 0%, respectively, at last follow-up. No grade 3+ events were observed. Expanded Prostate Cancer Index-26 urinary obstructive scores decreased during SMART (mean, 9.3 points; P = .03) and returned to baseline by 3 months. No other significant changes in patient-reported outcome measures were observed. One-hundred percent of fractions required plan adaptation owing to exceeding organ-at-risk metrics (68%) or suboptimal target coverage (33%) resulting from anatomic changes. Minimum acceptable planning target volume, rectal, bladder, and urethra/bladder neck metrics were violated in 24%, 20%, 24%, and 33% of predicted plans, respectively; 0% of reoptimized plans violated metrics. Underlying causes for deficient dosimetry before reoptimization included changes in bladder filling, seminal vesicle position, prostate volume (median 4.7% increase by fraction 3; range, 0%-56%), and hotspots shifting into urethra/bladder neck.

Conclusions

Prostate SMART results in low risk of acute toxic effects with improvements in target and organ-at-risk dosimetry. The clinical benefits resulting from daily plan adaptation, including urethra/bladder neck protection, warrant further investigation.