1
|
Zaidi F, Calame P, Chevalier C, Henriques J, Vernerey D, Vuitton L, Heyd B, Borg C, Boustani J. A comparison of target volumes drawn on arterial and venous phase scans during radiation therapy planning for patients with pancreatic cancer: the PANCRINJ study. Radiat Oncol 2024; 19:90. [PMID: 39010133 PMCID: PMC11251351 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-024-02477-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/06/2024] [Accepted: 06/18/2024] [Indexed: 07/17/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The planification of radiation therapy (RT) for pancreatic cancer (PC) requires a dosimetric computed tomography (CT) scan to define the gross tumor volume (GTV). The main objective of this study was to compare the inter-observer variability in RT planning between the arterial and the venous phases following intravenous contrast. METHODS PANCRINJ was a prospective monocentric study that included twenty patients with non-metastatic PC. Patients underwent a pre-therapeutic CT scan at the arterial and venous phases. The delineation of the GTV was performed by one radiologist (gold standard) and two senior radiation oncologists (operators). The primary objective was to compare the Jaccard conformity index (JCI) for the GTVs computed between the GS (gold standard) and the operators between the arterial and the venous phases with a Wilcoxon signed rank test for paired samples. The secondary endpoints were the geographical miss index (GMI), the kappa index, the intra-operator variability, and the dose-volume histograms between the arterial and venous phases. RESULTS The median JCI for the arterial and venous phases were 0.50 (range, 0.17-0.64) and 0.41 (range, 0.23-0.61) (p = 0.10) respectively. The median GS-GTV was statistically significantly smaller compared to the operators at the arterial (p < 0.0001) and venous phases (p < 0.001), respectively. The GMI were low with few tumors missed for all patients with a median GMI of 0.07 (range, 0-0.79) and 0.05 (range, 0-0.39) at the arterial and venous phases, respectively (p = 0.15). There was a moderate agreement between the radiation oncologists with a median kappa index of 0.52 (range 0.38-0.57) on the arterial phase, and 0.52 (range 0.36-0.57) on the venous phase (p = 0.08). The intra-observer variability for GTV delineation was lower at the venous phase than at the arterial phase for the two operators. There was no significant difference between the arterial and the venous phases regarding the dose-volume histogram for the operators. CONCLUSIONS Our results showed inter- and intra-observer variability in delineating GTV for PC without significant differences between the arterial and the venous phases. The use of both phases should be encouraged. Our findings suggest the need to provide training for radiation oncologists in pancreatic imaging and to collaborate within a multidisciplinary team.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fabien Zaidi
- Department of Radiotherapy, University of Bourgogne Franche-Comté, CHU Besançon, CHRU Besançon, Service de Radiothérapie, Hôpital Jean Minjoz, 3 Boulevard Alexandre Fleming, Besançon, 25030, France
| | - Paul Calame
- Department of Radiology, University of Bourgogne Franche-Comté, CHU Besançon, Besançon, 25030, France
| | - Cédric Chevalier
- Department of Radiotherapy, University of Bourgogne Franche-Comté, CHU Besançon, CHRU Besançon, Service de Radiothérapie, Hôpital Jean Minjoz, 3 Boulevard Alexandre Fleming, Besançon, 25030, France
| | - Julie Henriques
- Methodology and Quality of Life Unit in Oncology, University Hospital of Besançon, Besançon, France
- Université de Franche-Comté, EFS, INSERM, UMR RIGHT, Besançon, F-25000, France
| | - Dewi Vernerey
- Methodology and Quality of Life Unit in Oncology, University Hospital of Besançon, Besançon, France
- Université de Franche-Comté, EFS, INSERM, UMR RIGHT, Besançon, F-25000, France
| | - Lucine Vuitton
- Department of Gastroenteroly, University of Bourgogne Franche-Comté, CHU Besançon, Besançon, 25030, France
| | - Bruno Heyd
- Department of Digestive surgery, University of Bourgogne Franche-Comté, CHU Besançon, Besançon, 25030, France
| | - Christophe Borg
- Department of Oncology, University of Bourgogne Franche-Comté, CHU Besançon, Besançon, 25030, France
| | - Jihane Boustani
- Department of Radiotherapy, University of Bourgogne Franche-Comté, CHU Besançon, CHRU Besançon, Service de Radiothérapie, Hôpital Jean Minjoz, 3 Boulevard Alexandre Fleming, Besançon, 25030, France.
- Université de Franche-Comté, EFS, INSERM, UMR RIGHT, Besançon, F-25000, France.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Grimbergen G, Eijkelenkamp H, Snoeren LM, Bahij R, Bernchou U, van der Bijl E, Heerkens HD, Binda S, Ng SS, Bouchart C, Paquier Z, Brown K, Khor R, Chuter R, Freear L, Dunlop A, Mitchell RA, Erickson BA, Hall WA, Godoy Scripes P, Tyagi N, de Leon J, Tran C, Oh S, Renz P, Shessel A, Taylor E, Intven MP, Meijer GJ. Treatment planning for MR-guided SBRT of pancreatic tumors on a 1.5 T MR-Linac: A global consensus protocol. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2024; 47:100797. [PMID: 38831754 PMCID: PMC11145226 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2024.100797] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/22/2024] [Revised: 05/17/2024] [Accepted: 05/17/2024] [Indexed: 06/05/2024] Open
Abstract
Background and purpose Treatment planning for MR-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for pancreatic tumors can be challenging, leading to a wide variation of protocols and practices. This study aimed to harmonize treatment planning by developing a consensus planning protocol for MR-guided pancreas SBRT on a 1.5 T MR-Linac. Materials and methods A consortium was founded of thirteen centers that treat pancreatic tumors on a 1.5 T MR-Linac. A phased planning exercise was conducted in which centers iteratively created treatment plans for two cases of pancreatic cancer. Each phase was followed by a meeting where the instructions for the next phase were determined. After three phases, a consensus protocol was reached. Results In the benchmarking phase (phase I), substantial variation between the SBRT protocols became apparent (for example, the gross tumor volume (GTV) D99% ranged between 36.8 - 53.7 Gy for case 1, 22.6 - 35.5 Gy for case 2). The next phase involved planning according to the same basic dosimetric objectives, constraints, and planning margins (phase II), which led to a large degree of harmonization (GTV D99% range: 47.9-53.6 Gy for case 1, 33.9-36.6 Gy for case 2). In phase III, the final consensus protocol was formulated in a treatment planning system template and again used for treatment planning. This not only resulted in further dosimetric harmonization (GTV D99% range: 48.2-50.9 Gy for case 1, 33.5-36.0 Gy for case 2) but also in less variation of estimated treatment delivery times. Conclusion A global consensus protocol has been developed for treatment planning for MR-guided pancreatic SBRT on a 1.5 T MR-Linac. Aside from harmonizing the large variation in the current clinical practice, this protocol can provide a starting point for centers that are planning to treat pancreatic tumors on MR-Linac systems.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Guus Grimbergen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Hidde Eijkelenkamp
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Louk M.W. Snoeren
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Rana Bahij
- Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Denmark
| | - Uffe Bernchou
- Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark
| | - Erik van der Bijl
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Hanne D. Heerkens
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Shawn Binda
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Sylvia S.W. Ng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Christelle Bouchart
- Department of Radiation Oncology, HUB Institut Jules Bordet, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Zelda Paquier
- Department of Radiation Oncology, HUB Institut Jules Bordet, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Kerryn Brown
- Radiation Oncology, ONJ Centre, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
| | - Richard Khor
- Radiation Oncology, ONJ Centre, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
| | | | | | - Alex Dunlop
- The Joint Department of Physics, The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Robert Adam Mitchell
- The Joint Department of Physics, The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Beth A. Erickson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA
| | - William A. Hall
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA
| | - Paola Godoy Scripes
- Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Neelam Tyagi
- Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | | | - Charles Tran
- GenesisCare, Darlinghurst, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Seungjong Oh
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Paul Renz
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Andrea Shessel
- Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Edward Taylor
- Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Martijn P.W. Intven
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Gert J. Meijer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Young T, Lee M, Johnston M, Nguyen T, Ko R, Arumugam S. Assessment of interfraction dose variation in pancreas SBRT using daily simulation MR images. Phys Eng Sci Med 2023; 46:1619-1627. [PMID: 37747645 DOI: 10.1007/s13246-023-01324-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/05/2023] [Accepted: 08/24/2023] [Indexed: 09/26/2023]
Abstract
Pancreatic Cancer is associated with poor treatment outcomes compared to other cancers. High local control rates have been achieved by using hypofractionated stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) to treat pancreatic cancer. Challenges in delivering SBRT include close proximity of several organs at risk (OARs) and target volume inter and intra fraction positional variations. Magnetic resonance image (MRI) guided radiotherapy has shown potential for online adaptive radiotherapy for pancreatic cancer, with superior soft tissue contrast compared to CT. The aim of this study was to investigate the variability of target and OAR volumes for different treatment approaches for pancreatic cancer, and to assess the suitability of utilizing a treatment-day MRI for treatment planning purposes. Ten healthy volunteers were scanned on a Siemens Skyra 3 T MRI scanner over two sessions (approximately 3 h apart), per day over 5 days to simulate an SBRT daily simulation scan for treatment planning. A pretreatment scan was also done to simulate patient setup and treatment. A 4D MRI scan was taken at each session for internal target volume (ITV) generation and assessment. For each volunteer a treatment plan was generated in the Raystation treatment planning system (TPS) following departmental protocols on the day one, first session dataset (D1S1), with bulk density overrides applied to enable dose calculation. This treatment plan was propagated through other imaging sessions, and the dose calculated. An additional treatment plan was generated on each first session of each day (S1) to simulate a daily replan process, with this plan propagated to the second session of the day. These accumulated mock treatment doses were assessed against the original treatment plan through DVH comparison of the PTV and OAR volumes. The generated ITV showed large variations when compared to both the first session ITV and daily ITV, with an average magnitude of 22.44% ± 13.28% and 25.83% ± 37.48% respectively. The PTV D95 was reduced by approximately 23.3% for both plan comparisons considered. Surrounding OARs had large variations in dose, with the small bowel V30 increasing by 128.87% when compared to the D1S1 plan, and 43.11% when compared to each daily S1 plan. Daily online adaptive radiotherapy is required for accurate dose delivery for pancreas cancer in the absence of additional motion management and tumour tracking techniques.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tony Young
- Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres, Sydney, Australia.
- Ingham Institute, Sydney, Australia.
- Institute of Medical Physics, School of Physics, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
| | - Mark Lee
- Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres, Sydney, Australia
| | | | - Theresa Nguyen
- Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres, Sydney, Australia
| | - Rebecca Ko
- Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres, Sydney, Australia
| | - Sankar Arumugam
- Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres, Sydney, Australia
- Ingham Institute, Sydney, Australia
- South Western Sydney Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Jaarsma-Coes MG, Klaassen L, Verbist BM, Vu TK, Klaver YL, Rodrigues MF, Nabarro C, Luyten GP, Rasch CR, van Herk M, Beenakker JWM. Inter-Observer Variability in MR-Based Target Volume Delineation of Uveal Melanoma. Adv Radiat Oncol 2022; 8:101149. [PMID: 36691449 PMCID: PMC9860418 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2022.101149] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/16/2022] [Accepted: 12/14/2022] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Several efforts are being undertaken toward MRI-based treatment planning for ocular proton therapy for uveal melanoma (UM). The interobserver variability of the gross target volume (GTV) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is one of the important parameters to design safety margins for a reliable treatment. Therefore, this study assessed the interobserver variation in GTV delineation of UM on MRI. Methods and Materials Six observers delineated the GTV in 10 different patients using the Big Brother contouring software. Patients were scanned at 3T MRI with a surface coil, and tumors were delineated separately on contrast enhanced 3DT1 (T1gd) and 3DT2-weighted scans with an isotropic acquisition resolution of 0.8 mm. Volume difference and overall local variation (median standard deviation of the distance between the delineated contours and the median contour) were analyzed for each GTV. Additionally, the local variation was analyzed for 4 interfaces: sclera, vitreous, retinal detachment, and tumor-choroid interface. Results The average GTV was significantly larger on T1gd (0.57cm3) compared with T2 (0.51cm3, P = .01). A not significant higher interobserver variation was found on T1gd (0.41 mm) compared with T2 (0.35 mm). The largest variations were found at the tumor-choroid interface due to peritumoral enhancement (T1gd, 0.62 mm; T2, 0.52 mm). As a result, a larger part of this tumor-choroid interface appeared to be included on T1gd-based GTVs compared with T2, explaining the smaller volumes on T2. Conclusions The interobserver variation of 0.4 mm on MRI are low with respect to the voxel size of 0.8 mm, enabling small treatment margins. We recommend delineation based on the T1gd-weighted scans, as choroidal tumor extensions might be missed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Myriam G. Jaarsma-Coes
- Leiden University Medical Center, Ophthalmology, Leiden, Netherlands,Leiden University Medical Center, Radiology, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Lisa Klaassen
- Leiden University Medical Center, Ophthalmology, Leiden, Netherlands,Leiden University Medical Center, Radiology, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Berit M. Verbist
- Leiden University Medical Center, Radiology, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - T.H. Khanh Vu
- Leiden University Medical Center, Ophthalmology, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Yvonne L.B. Klaver
- HollandPTC, Radiation oncology, Delft, Netherlands,Leiden University Medical Center, Radiation Oncology, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Myra F. Rodrigues
- HollandPTC, Radiation oncology, Delft, Netherlands,Leiden University Medical Center, Radiation Oncology, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Claire Nabarro
- Leiden University Medical Center, Radiology, Leiden, Netherlands
| | | | - Coen R.N. Rasch
- HollandPTC, Radiation oncology, Delft, Netherlands,Leiden University Medical Center, Radiation Oncology, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Marcel van Herk
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Jan-Willem M. Beenakker
- Leiden University Medical Center, Ophthalmology, Leiden, Netherlands,Leiden University Medical Center, Radiology, Leiden, Netherlands,Leiden University Medical Center, Radiation Oncology, Leiden, Netherlands,Corresponding author: Jan-Willem M. Beenakker
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Goodburn RJ, Philippens MEP, Lefebvre TL, Khalifa A, Bruijnen T, Freedman JN, Waddington DEJ, Younus E, Aliotta E, Meliadò G, Stanescu T, Bano W, Fatemi‐Ardekani A, Wetscherek A, Oelfke U, van den Berg N, Mason RP, van Houdt PJ, Balter JM, Gurney‐Champion OJ. The future of MRI in radiation therapy: Challenges and opportunities for the MR community. Magn Reson Med 2022; 88:2592-2608. [PMID: 36128894 PMCID: PMC9529952 DOI: 10.1002/mrm.29450] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/07/2022] [Revised: 08/17/2022] [Accepted: 08/22/2022] [Indexed: 01/11/2023]
Abstract
Radiation therapy is a major component of cancer treatment pathways worldwide. The main aim of this treatment is to achieve tumor control through the delivery of ionizing radiation while preserving healthy tissues for minimal radiation toxicity. Because radiation therapy relies on accurate localization of the target and surrounding tissues, imaging plays a crucial role throughout the treatment chain. In the treatment planning phase, radiological images are essential for defining target volumes and organs-at-risk, as well as providing elemental composition (e.g., electron density) information for radiation dose calculations. At treatment, onboard imaging informs patient setup and could be used to guide radiation dose placement for sites affected by motion. Imaging is also an important tool for treatment response assessment and treatment plan adaptation. MRI, with its excellent soft tissue contrast and capacity to probe functional tissue properties, holds great untapped potential for transforming treatment paradigms in radiation therapy. The MR in Radiation Therapy ISMRM Study Group was established to provide a forum within the MR community to discuss the unmet needs and fuel opportunities for further advancement of MRI for radiation therapy applications. During the summer of 2021, the study group organized its first virtual workshop, attended by a diverse international group of clinicians, scientists, and clinical physicists, to explore our predictions for the future of MRI in radiation therapy for the next 25 years. This article reviews the main findings from the event and considers the opportunities and challenges of reaching our vision for the future in this expanding field.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rosie J. Goodburn
- Joint Department of PhysicsInstitute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation TrustLondonUnited Kingdom
| | | | - Thierry L. Lefebvre
- Department of PhysicsUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUnited Kingdom
- Cancer Research UK Cambridge Research InstituteUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUnited Kingdom
| | - Aly Khalifa
- Department of Medical BiophysicsUniversity of TorontoTorontoOntarioCanada
| | - Tom Bruijnen
- Department of RadiotherapyUniversity Medical Center UtrechtUtrechtNetherlands
| | | | - David E. J. Waddington
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Health Sciences, ACRF Image X InstituteThe University of SydneySydneyNew South WalesAustralia
| | - Eyesha Younus
- Department of Medical Physics, Odette Cancer CentreSunnybrook Health Sciences CentreTorontoOntarioCanada
| | - Eric Aliotta
- Department of Medical PhysicsMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkNew YorkUSA
| | - Gabriele Meliadò
- Unità Operativa Complessa di Fisica SanitariaAzienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata VeronaVeronaItaly
| | - Teo Stanescu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto and Medical Physics, Princess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health NetworkTorontoOntarioCanada
| | - Wajiha Bano
- Joint Department of PhysicsInstitute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation TrustLondonUnited Kingdom
| | - Ali Fatemi‐Ardekani
- Department of PhysicsJackson State University (JSU)JacksonMississippiUSA
- SpinTecxJacksonMississippiUSA
- Department of Radiation OncologyCommunity Health Systems (CHS) Cancer NetworkJacksonMississippiUSA
| | - Andreas Wetscherek
- Joint Department of PhysicsInstitute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation TrustLondonUnited Kingdom
| | - Uwe Oelfke
- Joint Department of PhysicsInstitute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation TrustLondonUnited Kingdom
| | - Nico van den Berg
- Department of RadiotherapyUniversity Medical Center UtrechtUtrechtNetherlands
| | - Ralph P. Mason
- Department of RadiologyUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical CenterDallasTexasUSA
| | - Petra J. van Houdt
- Department of Radiation OncologyNetherlands Cancer InstituteAmsterdamNetherlands
| | - James M. Balter
- Department of Radiation OncologyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborMichiganUSA
| | - Oliver J. Gurney‐Champion
- Imaging and Biomarkers, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMCUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamNetherlands
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
den Boer D, Veldman JK, van Tienhoven G, Bel A, van Kesteren Z. Evaluating differences in respiratory motion estimates during radiotherapy: a single planning 4DMRI versus daily 4DMRI. Radiat Oncol 2021; 16:188. [PMID: 34565384 PMCID: PMC8474826 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-021-01915-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/08/2021] [Accepted: 09/14/2021] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Background In radiotherapy, respiratory-induced tumor motion is typically measured using a single four-dimensional computed tomography acquisition (4DCT). Irregular breathing leads to inaccurate motion estimates, potentially resulting in undertreatment of the tumor and unnecessary dose to healthy tissue. The aim of the research was to determine if a daily pre-treatment 4DMRI-strategy led to a significantly improved motion estimate compared to single planning 4DMRI (with or without outlier rejection). Methods 4DMRI data sets from 10 healthy volunteers were acquired. The first acquisition simulated a planning MRI, the respiratory motion estimate (constructed from the respiratory signal, i.e. the 1D navigator) was compared to the respiratory signal in the subsequent scans (simulating 5–29 treatment fractions). The same procedure was performed using the first acquisition of each day as an estimate for the subsequent acquisitions that day (2 per day, 4–20 per volunteer), simulating a daily MRI strategy. This was done for three outlier strategies: no outlier rejection (NoOR); excluding 5% of the respiratory signal whilst minimizing the range (Min95) and excluding the datapoints outside the mean end-inhalation and end-exhalation positions (MeanIE). Results The planning MRI median motion estimates were 27 mm for NoOR, 18 mm for Min95, and 13 mm for MeanIE. The daily MRI median motion estimates were 29 mm for NoOR, 19 mm for Min95 and 15 mm for MeanIE. The percentage of time outside the motion estimate were for the planning MRI: 2%, 10% and 32% for NoOR, Min95 and MeanIE respectively. These values were reduced with the daily MRI strategy: 0%, 6% and 17%. Applying Min95 accounted for a 30% decrease in motion estimate compared to NoOR. Conclusion A daily MRI improved the estimation of respiratory motion as compared to a single 4D (planning) MRI significantly. Combining the Min95 technique with a daily 4DMRI resulted in a decrease of inclusion time of 6% with a 30% decrease of motion. Outlier rejection alone on a planning MRI often led to underestimation of the movement and could potentially lead to an underdosage. Trial registration: protocol W15_373#16.007 Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13014-021-01915-1.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Duncan den Boer
- Department of Radiotherapy, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Johannes K Veldman
- Department of Radiotherapy, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Geertjan van Tienhoven
- Department of Radiotherapy, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Arjan Bel
- Department of Radiotherapy, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Zdenko van Kesteren
- Department of Radiotherapy, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Bernstein D, Taylor A, Nill S, Oelfke U. New target volume delineation and PTV strategies to further personalise radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol 2021; 66:055024. [PMID: 33498018 PMCID: PMC8208617 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/abe029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/15/2020] [Revised: 01/10/2021] [Accepted: 01/26/2021] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
Target volume delineation uncertainty (DU) is arguably one of the largest geometric uncertainties in radiotherapy that are accounted for using planning target volume (PTV) margins. Geometrical uncertainties are typically derived from a limited sample of patients. Consequently, the resultant margins are not tailored to individual patients. Furthermore, standard PTVs cannot account for arbitrary anisotropic extensions of the target volume originating from DU. We address these limitations by developing a method to measure DU for each patient by a single clinician. This information is then used to produce PTVs that account for each patient's unique DU, including any required anisotropic component. We do so using a two-step uncertainty evaluation strategy that does not rely on multiple samples of data to capture the DU of a patient's gross tumour volume (GTV) or clinical target volume. For simplicity, we will just refer to the GTV in the following. First, the clinician delineates two contour sets; one which bounds all voxels believed to have a probability of belonging to the GTV of 1, while the second includes all voxels with a probability greater than 0. Next, one specifies a probability density function for the true GTV boundary position within the boundaries of the two contours. Finally, a patient-specific PTV, designed to account for all systematic errors, is created using this information along with measurements of the other systematic errors. Clinical examples indicate that our margin strategy can produce significantly smaller PTVs than the van Herk margin recipe. Our new radiotherapy target delineation concept allows DUs to be quantified by the clinician for each patient, leading to PTV margins that are tailored to each unique patient, thus paving the way to a greater personalisation of radiotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David Bernstein
- Joint Department of Physics, The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Fulham Road, London, SW3 6JJ, United Kingdom
| | - Alexandra Taylor
- Gynaecology Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Fulham Road, London, SW3 6JJ, United Kingdom
| | - Simeon Nill
- Joint Department of Physics, The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, SM2 5PT, United Kingdom
| | - Uwe Oelfke
- Joint Department of Physics, The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, SM2 5PT, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Brunner TB, Haustermans K, Huguet F, Morganti AG, Mukherjee S, Belka C, Krempien R, Hawkins MA, Valentini V, Roeder F. ESTRO ACROP guidelines for target volume definition in pancreatic cancer. Radiother Oncol 2021; 154:60-69. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.07.052] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/27/2020] [Accepted: 07/29/2020] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
|
9
|
Dowling JA, O’Connor LM. Deformable image registration in radiation therapy. J Med Radiat Sci 2020; 67:257-259. [PMID: 33104276 PMCID: PMC7753986 DOI: 10.1002/jmrs.446] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/31/2020] [Accepted: 10/03/2020] [Indexed: 01/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Deformable image registration is an increasingly important method to account for soft tissue deformation between image acquisitions. This editorial discusses the clinical need and current status of deformable image registration.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jason A Dowling
- CSIRO Australian E‐Health Research CentreHerstonQueenslandAustralia
- School of Mathematical and Physical SciencesUniversity of NewcastleNewcastleNew South WalesAustralia
- School of Information Technology and Electrical EngineeringUniversity of QueenslandSt LuciaQueenslandAustralia
- School of Information Technology and SystemsUniversity of CanberraCanberraAustralian Capital TerritoryAustralia
- Faculty of MedicineUniversity of New South WalesSydneyNew South WalesAustralia
- Centre for Medical Radiation PhysicsUniversity of WollongongWollongongNew South WalesAustralia
- Institute of Medical PhysicsUniversity of SydneySydneyNew South WalesAustralia
| | - Laura M O’Connor
- Department of Radiation OncologyCalvary Mater Newcastle HospitalNewcastleNew South WalesAustralia
- School of Health SciencesUniversity of NewcastleNewcastleNew South WalesAustralia
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Lukovic J, Henke L, Gani C, Kim TK, Stanescu T, Hosni A, Lindsay P, Erickson B, Khor R, Eccles C, Boon C, Donker M, Jagavkar R, Nowee ME, Hall WA, Parikh P, Dawson LA. MRI-Based Upper Abdominal Organs-at-Risk Atlas for Radiation Oncology. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 106:743-753. [PMID: 31953061 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.12.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/19/2019] [Accepted: 12/02/2019] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The purpose of our study was to provide a guide for identification and contouring of upper abdominal organs-at-risk (OARs) in the setting of online magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided radiation treatment planning and delivery. METHODS AND MATERIALS After a needs assessment survey, it was determined that an upper abdominal MRI-based atlas of normal OARs would be of benefit to radiation oncologists and radiation therapists. An anonymized diagnostic 1.5T MRI from a patient with typical upper abdominal anatomy was used for atlas development. Two MRI sequences were selected for contouring, a T1-weighted gadoxetic acid contrast-enhanced MRI acquired in the hepatobiliary phase and axial fast imaging with balanced steady-state precession. Two additional clinical MRI sequences from commercial online MRI-guided radiation therapy systems were selected for contouring and were included in the final atlas. Contours from each data set were completed and reviewed by radiation oncologists, along with a radiologist who specializes in upper abdominal imaging, to generate a consensus upper abdominal MRI-based OAR atlas. RESULTS A normal OAR atlas was developed, including recommendations for contouring. The atlas and contouring guidance are described, and high-resolution MRI images and contours are displayed. OARs, such as the bile duct and biliary tree, which may be better seen on MRI than on computed tomography, are highlighted. The full DICOM/DICOM-RT MRI images from both the diagnostic and clinical online MRI-guided radiation therapy systems data sets have been made freely available, for educational purposes, at econtour.org. CONCLUSIONS This MRI contouring atlas for upper abdominal OARs should provide a useful reference for contouring and education. Its routine use may help to improve uniformity in contouring in radiation oncology planning and OAR dose calculation. Full DICOM/DICOM-RT images are available online and provide a valuable educational resource for upper abdominal MRI-based radiation therapy planning and delivery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jelena Lukovic
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Lauren Henke
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St Louis, Missouri
| | - Cihan Gani
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital and Medical Faculty Tübingen, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Tae K Kim
- Joint Department of Medical Imaging, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Teodor Stanescu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Medical Physics, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Ali Hosni
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Patricia Lindsay
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Medical Physics, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Beth Erickson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
| | - Richard Khor
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Cynthia Eccles
- Department of Radiotherapy, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Cheng Boon
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Rutherford Cancer Centre North West, Liverpool, United Kingdom
| | - Mila Donker
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Raj Jagavkar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, St. Vincent's Hospital Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Marlies E Nowee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - William A Hall
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
| | - Parag Parikh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan
| | - Laura A Dawson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
MRI basics for radiation oncologists. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2019; 18:74-79. [PMID: 31341980 PMCID: PMC6630156 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2019.04.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/22/2019] [Revised: 04/09/2019] [Accepted: 04/09/2019] [Indexed: 02/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Issues of MRI that are relevant for radiation oncologists are addressed. Radiation oncology requires dedicated scan protocols. Use of diagnostic protocols is not recommended for radiotherapy. MR images must be made in treatment position with the standard positioning devices. Safety screening prior to entering the MRI room is crucial.
MRI is increasingly used in radiation oncology to facilitate tumor and organ-at-risk delineation and image guidance. In this review, we address issues of MRI that are relevant for radiation oncologists when interpreting MR images offered for radiotherapy. Whether MRI is used in combination with CT or in an MRI-only workflow, it is generally necessary to ensure that MR images are acquired in treatment position, using the positioning and fixation devices that are commonly applied in radiotherapy. For target delineation, often a series of separate image sets are used with distinct image contrasts, acquired within a single exam. MR images can suffer from image distortions. While this can be avoided with dedicated scan protocols, in a diagnostic setting geometrical fidelity is less relevant and is therefore less accounted for. Since geometrical fidelity is of utmost importance in radiation oncology, it requires dedicated scan protocols. The strong magnetic field of an MRI scanner and the use of radiofrequency radiation can cause safety hazards if not properly addressed. Safety screening is crucial for every patient and every operator prior to entering the MRI room.
Collapse
|
12
|
Machiels M, Jin P, van Hooft JE, Gurney-Champion OJ, Jelvehgaran P, Geijsen ED, Jeene PM, Willemijn Kolff M, Oppedijk V, Rasch CRN, van Herk MB, Alderliesten T, Hulshof MCCM. Reduced inter-observer and intra-observer delineation variation in esophageal cancer radiotherapy by use of fiducial markers. Acta Oncol 2019; 58:943-950. [PMID: 30905243 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2019.1588991] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
Abstract
Objective: Delineation variation of esophageal tumors remains a large source of geometric uncertainty. In the present study, we investigated the inter- and intra-observer variation in esophageal gross tumor volume (GTV) delineation and the impact of endoscopically implanted fiducial markers on these variations. Material/Methods: Ten esophageal cancer patients with at least two markers endoscopically implanted at the cranial and caudal tumor borders and visible on the planning computed tomography (pCT) were included in this study. Five dedicated gastrointestinal radiation oncologists independently delineated GTVs on the pCT without markers and with markers. The GTV was first delineated on pCTs where markers were digitally removed and next on the original pCT with markers. Both delineation series were executed twice to determine intra-observer variation. For both the inter- and intra-observer analyses, the generalized conformity index (CIgen), and the standard deviation (SD) of the distances between delineated surfaces (i.e., overall, longitudinal, and radial SDs) were calculated. Linear mixed-effect models were used to compare the without and with markers series (α = 0.05). Results: Both the inter- and intra-observer CIgen were significantly larger in the series with markers than in the series without markers (p < .001). For the series without markers vs. with markers, the inter-observer overall SD, longitudinal SD, and radial SD was 0.63 cm vs. 0.22 cm, 1.44 cm vs. 0.42 cm, and 0.26 cm vs. 0.18 cm, respectively (p < .05); moreover, the intra-observer overall SD, longitudinal SD, and radial SD was 0.45 cm vs. 0.26 cm, 1.10 cm vs. 0.41 cm, and 0.22 cm vs. 0.15 cm, respectively (p < .05). Conclusion: The presence of markers at the cranial and caudal tumor borders significantly reduced both inter- and intra-observer GTV delineation variation, especially in the longitudinal direction. Our results endorse the use of markers in GTV delineation for esophageal cancer patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mélanie Machiels
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Peng Jin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jeanin E. van Hooft
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Oliver J. Gurney-Champion
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Pouya Jelvehgaran
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Physics and Astronomy, Institute for Laser Life and Biophotonics Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Elizabeth D. Geijsen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Paul M. Jeene
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M. Willemijn Kolff
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Vera Oppedijk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radiotherapy Institute Friesland, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands
| | - Coen. R. N. Rasch
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marcel B. van Herk
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, University of Manchester Institute of Cancer Sciences, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Tanja Alderliesten
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Maarten C. C. M. Hulshof
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Gurney-Champion OJ, Collins DJ, Wetscherek A, Rata M, Klaassen R, van Laarhoven HWM, Harrington KJ, Oelfke U, Orton MR. Principal component analysis fosr fast and model-free denoising of multi b-value diffusion-weighted MR images. Phys Med Biol 2019; 64:105015. [PMID: 30965296 PMCID: PMC7655121 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ab1786] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/26/2018] [Revised: 03/18/2019] [Accepted: 04/09/2019] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
Despite the utility of tumour characterisation using quantitative parameter maps from multi-b-value diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI), clinicians often prefer the use of the image with highest diffusion-weighting (b-value), for instance for defining regions of interest (ROIs). However, these images are typically degraded by noise, as they do not utilize the information from the full acquisition. We present a principal component analysis (PCA) approach for model-free denoising of DWI data. PCA-denoising was compared to synthetic MRI, where a diffusion model is fitted for each voxel and a denoised image at a given b-value is generated from the model fit. A quantitative comparison of systematic and random errors was performed on data simulated using several diffusion models (mono-exponential, bi-exponential, stretched-exponential and kurtosis). A qualitative visual comparison was also performed for in vivo images in six healthy volunteers and three pancreatic cancer patients. In simulations, the reduction in random errors from PCA-denoising was substantial (up to 55%) and similar to synthetic MRI (up to 53%). Model-based synthetic MRI denoising resulted in substantial (up to 29% of signal) systematic errors, whereas PCA-denoising was able to denoise without introducing systematic errors (less than 2%). In vivo, the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and sharpness of PCA-denoised images were superior to synthetic MRI, resulting in clearer tumour boundaries. In the presence of motion, PCA-denoising did not cause image blurring, unlike image averaging or synthetic MRI. Multi-b-value MRI can be denoised model-free with our PCA-denoising strategy that reduces noise to a level similar to synthetic MRI, but without introducing systematic errors associated with the synthetic MRI method.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Oliver J Gurney-Champion
- Joint Department of Physics, The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden
NHS Foundation Trust, London, United
Kingdom
| | - David J Collins
- Cancer Research UK Cancer Imaging Centre,
The Institute of Cancer Research and The
Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United
Kingdom
| | - Andreas Wetscherek
- Joint Department of Physics, The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden
NHS Foundation Trust, London, United
Kingdom
| | - Mihaela Rata
- Cancer Research UK Cancer Imaging Centre,
The Institute of Cancer Research and The
Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United
Kingdom
| | - Remy Klaassen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center
Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of
Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Hanneke W M van Laarhoven
- Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center
Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of
Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Kevin J Harrington
- Targeted Therapy Team, The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden
NHS Foundation Trust, London, United
Kingdom
| | - Uwe Oelfke
- Joint Department of Physics, The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden
NHS Foundation Trust, London, United
Kingdom
| | - Matthew R Orton
- Cancer Research UK Cancer Imaging Centre,
The Institute of Cancer Research and The
Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United
Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
van Kesteren Z, van der Horst A, Gurney-Champion OJ, Bones I, Tekelenburg D, Alderliesten T, van Tienhoven G, Klaassen R, van Laarhoven HWM, Bel A. A novel amplitude binning strategy to handle irregular breathing during 4DMRI acquisition: improved imaging for radiotherapy purposes. Radiat Oncol 2019; 14:80. [PMID: 31088490 PMCID: PMC6518684 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-019-1279-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/02/2018] [Accepted: 04/22/2019] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Background For radiotherapy of abdominal cancer, four-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging (4DMRI) is desirable for tumor definition and the assessment of tumor and organ motion. However, irregular breathing gives rise to image artifacts. We developed a outlier rejection strategy resulting in a 4DMRI with reduced image artifacts in the presence of irregular breathing. Methods We obtained 2D T2-weighted single-shot turbo spin echo images, with an interleaved 1D navigator acquisition to obtain the respiratory signal during free breathing imaging in 2 patients and 12 healthy volunteers. Prior to binning, upper and lower inclusion thresholds were chosen such that 95% of the acquired images were included, while minimizing the distance between the thresholds (inclusion range (IR)). We compared our strategy (Min95) with three commonly applied strategies: phase binning with all images included (Phase), amplitude binning with all images included (MaxIE), and amplitude binning with the thresholds set as the mean end-inhale and mean end-exhale diaphragm positions (MeanIE). We compared 4DMRI quality based on:Data included (DI); percentage of images remaining after outlier rejection. Reconstruction completeness (RC); percentage of bin-slice combinations containing at least one image after binning. Intra-bin variation (IBV); interquartile range of the diaphragm position within the bin-slice combination, averaged over three central slices and ten respiratory bins. IR. Image smoothness (S); quantified by fitting a parabola to the diaphragm profile in a sagittal plane of the reconstructed 4DMRI.
A two-sided Wilcoxon’s signed-rank test was used to test for significance in differences between the Min95 strategy and the Phase, MaxIE, and MeanIE strategies. Results Based on the fourteen subjects, the Min95 binning strategy outperformed the other strategies with a mean RC of 95.5%, mean IBV of 1.6 mm, mean IR of 15.1 mm and a mean S of 0.90. The Phase strategy showed a poor mean IBV of 6.2 mm and the MaxIE strategy showed a poor mean RC of 85.6%, resulting in image artifacts (mean S of 0.76). The MeanIE strategy demonstrated a mean DI of 85.6%. Conclusions Our Min95 reconstruction strategy resulted in a 4DMRI with less artifacts and more precise diaphragm position reconstruction compared to the other strategies. Trial registration Volunteers: protocol W15_373#16.007; patients: protocol NL47713.018.14 Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13014-019-1279-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Z van Kesteren
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - A van der Horst
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - O J Gurney-Champion
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Joint Department of Physics, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK, SM2 5NG, UK
| | - I Bones
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - D Tekelenburg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - T Alderliesten
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - G van Tienhoven
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - R Klaassen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - H W M van Laarhoven
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - A Bel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Caravatta L, Cellini F, Simoni N, Rosa C, Niespolo RM, Lupattelli M, Picardi V, Macchia G, Sainato A, Mantello G, Dionisi F, Rosetto ME, Fusco V, Navarria F, De Paoli A, Guido A, Vecchi C, Basilico R, Cianci R, Delli Pizzi A, Di Nicola M, Mattiucci GC, Valentini V, Morganti AG, Genovesi D. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) compared with computed tomography (CT) for interobserver agreement of gross tumor volume delineation in pancreatic cancer: a multi-institutional contouring study on behalf of the AIRO group for gastrointestinal cancers. Acta Oncol 2019; 58:439-447. [PMID: 30632876 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2018.1546899] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Due to the high soft tissue resolution, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) could improve the accuracy of pancreatic tumor delineation in radiation treatment planning. A multi-institutional study was proposed to evaluate the impact of MRI on inter-observer agreement in gross tumor volume (GTV) and duodenum delineation for pancreatic cancer compared with computer tomography (CT). MATERIAL AND METHODS Two clinical cases of borderline resectable (Case 1) and unresectable (Case 2) pancreatic cancer were selected. In two sequential steps, diagnostic contrast-enhanced CT scan and MRI sequences were sent to the participating centers. CT-GTVs were contoured while blinded to MRI data sets. DICE index was used to evaluate the spatial overlap accuracy. RESULTS Thirty-one radiation oncologists from different Institutions submitted the delineated volumes. CT- and MRI-GTV mean volumes were 21.6 ± 9.0 cm3 and 17.2 ± 6.0 cm3, respectively for Case 1, and 31.3 ± 15.6 cm3 and 33.2 ± 20.2 cm3, respectively for Case 2. Resulting MRI-GTV mean volume was significantly smaller than CT-GTV in the borderline resectable case (p < .05). A substantial agreement was shown by the median DICE index for CT- and MRI-GTV resulting as 0.74 (IQR: 0.67-0.75) and 0.61 (IQR: 0.57-0.67) for Case 1; a moderate agreement was instead reported for Case 2: 0.59 (IQR:0.52-0.66) and 0.53 (IQR:0.42-0.62) for CT- and MRI-GTV, respectively. CONCLUSION Diagnostic MRI resulted in smaller GTV in borderline resectable case with a substantial agreement between observers, and was comparable to CT scan in interobserver variability, in both cases. The greater variability in the unresectable case underlines the critical issues related to the outlining when vascular structures are more involved. The integration of MRI with contrast-enhancement CT, thanks to its high definition of tumor relationship with neighboring vessels, could offer a greater accuracy of target delineation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luciana Caravatta
- Department of Radiotherapy, ‘SS Annunziata’ Hospital ‘G. D’Annunzio’ University, Chieti, Italy
| | - Francesco Cellini
- Gemelli Advanced Radiation Therapy Center Fondazione Policlinico Universitario ‘A. Gemelli’ Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
| | - Nicola Simoni
- Radiotherapy Unit Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria, Verona, Italy
| | - Consuelo Rosa
- Department of Radiotherapy, ‘SS Annunziata’ Hospital ‘G. D’Annunzio’ University, Chieti, Italy
| | | | - Marco Lupattelli
- Radiation Oncology Section University of Perugia and Perugia General Hospital, Perugia, Italy
| | - Vincenzo Picardi
- Radiotherapy Unit Department of Oncology, ‘Giovanni Paolo II’ Foundation Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Campobasso, Italy
| | - Gabriella Macchia
- Radiotherapy Unit Department of Oncology, ‘Giovanni Paolo II’ Foundation Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Campobasso, Italy
| | - Aldo Sainato
- Radiotherapy Unit, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy
| | | | - Francesco Dionisi
- Proton Therapy Unit, Department of Oncology, Azienda Provinciale per i Servizi Sanitari, APSS, Trento, Italy
| | | | - Vincenzo Fusco
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico Regionale, Rionero in Vulture, Potenza, Italy
| | - Federico Navarria
- Department of Radiation Oncology Centro di Riferimento Oncologico, National Cancer Institute, Aviano, Italy
| | - Antonino De Paoli
- Department of Radiation Oncology Centro di Riferimento Oncologico, National Cancer Institute, Aviano, Italy
| | - Alessandra Guido
- Radiation Oncology Center, Department of Experimental Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine - DIMES, University of Bologna, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy
| | | | - Raffaella Basilico
- Department of Radiology, ‘SS Annunziata’ Hospital ‘G. D’Annunzio’ University, Chieti, Italy
| | - Roberta Cianci
- Department of Radiology, ‘SS Annunziata’ Hospital ‘G. D’Annunzio’ University, Chieti, Italy
| | - Andrea Delli Pizzi
- Department of Radiology, ‘SS Annunziata’ Hospital ‘G. D’Annunzio’ University, Chieti, Italy
| | - Marta Di Nicola
- Laboratory of Biostatistics Department of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences ‘G. D'Annunzio’ University, Chieti, Italy
| | - Gian Carlo Mattiucci
- Gemelli Advanced Radiation Therapy Center Fondazione Policlinico Universitario ‘A. Gemelli’ Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
| | - Vincenzo Valentini
- Gemelli Advanced Radiation Therapy Center Fondazione Policlinico Universitario ‘A. Gemelli’ Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
| | - Alessio Giuseppe Morganti
- Radiation Oncology Center, Department of Experimental Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine - DIMES, University of Bologna, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy
| | - Domenico Genovesi
- Department of Radiotherapy, ‘SS Annunziata’ Hospital ‘G. D’Annunzio’ University, Chieti, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Zhou Y, Yuan J, Wong OL, Fung WWK, Cheng KF, Cheung KY, Yu SK. Assessment of positional reproducibility in the head and neck on a 1.5-T MR simulator for an offline MR-guided radiotherapy solution. Quant Imaging Med Surg 2018; 8:925-935. [PMID: 30505721 DOI: 10.21037/qims.2018.10.03] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
Background Recently, a shuttle-based offline magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) approach was proposed. This study aims to evaluate the positional reproducibility in the immobilized head and neck using a 1.5-T MR-simulator (MR-sim) on healthy volunteers. Methods A total of 159 scans of 14 healthy volunteers were conducted on a 1.5-T MR-sim with thermoplastic mask immobilization. MR images with isotropic 1.053 mm3 voxel size were rigidly registered to the first scan based on fiducial, anatomical and gross positions. Mean and standard deviation of positional displacements in translation and rotation were assessed. Systematic error and random errors of positioning in the head and neck on the MR-sim were determined in the translation of, and in the rotation of roll, pitch and yaw. Results The systematic error (Σ) of translation in left-right (LR), anterior-posterior (AP) and superior-inferior (SI) direction was 0.57, 0.22 and 0.26 mm for fiducial displacement, 0.28, 0.10 and 0.52 mm for anatomical displacement, and 0.53, 0.22 and 0.49 mm for gross displacement, respectively. The random error (σ) in corresponding translation direction was 2.07, 0.54 and 1.32 mm for fiducial displacement, 1.34, 0.73 and 2.04 mm for anatomical displacement, and 2.24, 0.86 and 2.61 mm for gross displacement. The systematic error and random error of rotation were generally smaller than 1°. Conclusions Our results suggested that high gross positional reproducibility (<1 mm translational and <1° rotational systematic error) could be achieved on an MR-sim for the proposed offline MRgRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yihang Zhou
- Medical Physics and Research Department, Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, Hong Kong, China
| | - Jing Yuan
- Medical Physics and Research Department, Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, Hong Kong, China
| | - Oi Lei Wong
- Medical Physics and Research Department, Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, Hong Kong, China
| | - Winky Wing Ki Fung
- Department of Radiotherapy, Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, Hong Kong, China
| | - Ka Fai Cheng
- Department of Radiotherapy, Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, Hong Kong, China
| | - Kin Yin Cheung
- Medical Physics and Research Department, Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, Hong Kong, China
| | - Siu Ki Yu
- Medical Physics and Research Department, Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, Hong Kong, China
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Klaassen R, Gurney-Champion OJ, Engelbrecht MRW, Stoker J, Wilmink JW, Besselink MG, Bel A, van Tienhoven G, van Laarhoven HWM, Nederveen AJ. Evaluation of Six Diffusion-weighted MRI Models for Assessing Effects of Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation in Pancreatic Cancer Patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018; 102:1052-1062. [PMID: 29891208 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.04.064] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/27/2017] [Revised: 04/03/2018] [Accepted: 04/23/2018] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To compare 6 diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) MRI models for response evaluation in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). MATERIALS AND METHODS DWI images were acquired at 3T for b = 0-600 s/mm2 in fourteen patients with advanced PDAC during 2 separate pretreatment sessions and 9 patients with (borderline) resectable PDAC pre and post neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Data was fitted with a mono-exponential (ADC), double mono-exponential to b = 0 and 100 s/mm2 (ADCfast), and b = 100 and 600 s/mm2 (ADCslow), IVIM model with D* free (D, f, D*) and fixed (D, f), tri-exponent (D, f1, f2), and stretched exponent model (DDC, α). Goodness of fit (adjusted R2), tumor to normal tissue contrast, repeatability (coefficient of variation), and parameter correlations (Spearman's rho) were assessed for the repeated measures. Treatment induced changes were assessed and compared to the repeatability. RESULTS The mono-exponential model had the lowest goodness of fit in both tumor (R2 = 0.94) and normal-appearing pancreas (R2 = 0.88). Tumour to normal tissue contrast was higher for the 'non-diffusion' parameters (ADCfast, f, D*, f1, f2, α), with better repeatability for the diffusion parameters (ADC, ADCslow, D, DDC). Diffusion parameters were strongly correlated between the models (rho ≥0.81) and showed a general treatment associated increase. All models were able to identify individual treatment effects, showing a change greater than the repeatability in 5 out of 9 patients for at least one of the parameters. CONCLUSIONS Individual treatment evaluation is possible with all investigated DWI models, with treatment associated changes exceeding the repeatability. The double monoexponential fit with ADCfast and ADCslow is able to discriminate between non-diffusion and diffusion related effects, is measured fast and can be performed on most commercial scanners, making it an attractive alternative for the more advanced multiparametric models in radiotherapy treatment evaluation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Remy Klaassen
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Department of Medical Oncology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, LEXOR (Laboratory for Experimental Oncology and Radiobiology), Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Oliver J Gurney-Champion
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Radiation Oncology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marc R W Engelbrecht
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jaap Stoker
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Johanna W Wilmink
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Department of Medical Oncology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marc G Besselink
- Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Arjan Bel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Hanneke W M van Laarhoven
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Department of Medical Oncology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Aart J Nederveen
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Comparison of six fit algorithms for the intra-voxel incoherent motion model of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging data of pancreatic cancer patients. PLoS One 2018; 13:e0194590. [PMID: 29617445 PMCID: PMC5884505 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194590] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/11/2017] [Accepted: 03/06/2018] [Indexed: 01/22/2023] Open
Abstract
The intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) model for diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) MRI data bears much promise as a tool for visualizing tumours and monitoring treatment response. To improve the currently poor precision of IVIM, several fit algorithms have been suggested. In this work, we compared the performance of two Bayesian IVIM fit algorithms and four other IVIM fit algorithms for pancreatic cancer imaging. DWI data were acquired in 14 pancreatic cancer patients during two MRI examinations. Three different measures of performance of the fitting algorithms were assessed: (i) uniqueness of fit parameters (Spearman’s rho); (ii) precision (within-subject coefficient of variation, wCV); and (iii) contrast between tumour and normal-appearing pancreatic tissue. For the diffusivity D and perfusion fraction f, a Bayesian fit (IVIM-Bayesian-lin) offered the best trade-off between tumour contrast and precision. With the exception for IVIM-Bayesian-lin, all algorithms resulted in a very poor precision of the pseudo-diffusion coefficient D* with a wCV of more than 50%. The pseudo-diffusion coefficient D* of the Bayesian approaches were, however, significantly correlated with D and f. Therefore, the added value of fitting D* was considered limited in pancreatic cancer patients. The easier implemented least squares fit with fixed D* (IVIM-fixed) performed similar to IVIM-Bayesian-lin for f and D. In conclusion, the best performing IVIM fit algorithm was IVM-Bayesian-lin, but an easier to implement least squares fit with fixed D* performs similarly in pancreatic cancer patients.
Collapse
|
19
|
Gurney-Champion OJ, McQuaid D, Dunlop A, Wong KH, Welsh LC, Riddell AM, Koh DM, Oelfke U, Leach MO, Nutting CM, Bhide SA, Harrington KJ, Panek R, Newbold KL. MRI-based Assessment of 3D Intrafractional Motion of Head and Neck Cancer for Radiation Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018; 100:306-316. [PMID: 29229323 PMCID: PMC5777665 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.10.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/25/2017] [Revised: 09/14/2017] [Accepted: 10/03/2017] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To determine the 3-dimensional (3D) intrafractional motion of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). METHODS AND MATERIALS Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance images from 56 patients with HNSCC in the treatment position were analyzed. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging consisted of 3D images acquired every 2.9 seconds for 4 minutes 50 seconds. Intrafractional tumor motion was studied in the 3 minutes 43 seconds of images obtained after initial contrast enhancement. To assess tumor motion, rigid registration (translations only) was performed using a region of interest (ROI) mask around the tumor. The results were compared with bulk body motion from registration to all voxels. Motion was split into systematic motion and random motion. Correlations between the tumor site and random motion were tested. The within-subject coefficient of variation was determined from 8 patients with repeated baseline measures. Random motion was also assessed at the end of the first week (38 patients) and second week (25 patients) of radiation therapy to investigate trends of motion. RESULTS Tumors showed irregular occasional rapid motion (eg, swallowing or coughing), periodic intermediate motion (respiration), and slower systematic drifts throughout treatment. For 95% of the patients, displacements due to systematic and random motion were <1.4 mm and <2.1 mm, respectively, 95% of the time. The motion without an ROI mask was significantly (P<.0001, Wilcoxon signed rank test) less than the motion with an ROI mask, indicating that tumors can move independently from the bony anatomy. Tumor motion was significantly (P=.005, Mann-Whitney U test) larger in the hypopharynx and larynx than in the oropharynx. The within-subject coefficient of variation for random motion was 0.33. The average random tumor motion did not increase notably during the first 2 weeks of treatment. CONCLUSIONS The 3D intrafractional tumor motion of HNSCC is small, with systematic motion <1.4 mm and random motion <2.1 mm 95% of the time.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Oliver J Gurney-Champion
- Joint Department of Physics, The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
| | - Dualta McQuaid
- Joint Department of Physics, The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Alex Dunlop
- Joint Department of Physics, The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Kee H Wong
- Department of Clinical Oncology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Liam C Welsh
- Department of Clinical Oncology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Angela M Riddell
- Department of Radiology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Dow-Mu Koh
- Department of Radiology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Uwe Oelfke
- Joint Department of Physics, The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Martin O Leach
- CR UK Cancer Imaging Centre, The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Christopher M Nutting
- Joint Department of Radiotherapy, The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Shreerang A Bhide
- Joint Department of Radiotherapy, The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Kevin J Harrington
- Joint Department of Physics, The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Rafal Panek
- Department of Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | - Kate L Newbold
- Department of Clinical Oncology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Schneider S, Jølck RI, Troost EGC, Hoffmann AL. Quantification of MRI visibility and artifacts at 3T of liquid fiducial marker in a pancreas tissue-mimicking phantom. Med Phys 2017; 45:37-47. [DOI: 10.1002/mp.12670] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/11/2017] [Revised: 10/20/2017] [Accepted: 10/25/2017] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Sergej Schneider
- Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf; Dresden Germany
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology; Faculty of Medicine; University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus; Technische Universität Dresden; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf; Dresden Germany
| | - Rasmus Irming Jølck
- Nanovi Radiotherapy A/S; DK-2800 Kongens Lyngby Denmark
- Department of Micro- and Nanotechnology; Center for Nanomedicine and Theranostics; Technical University of Denmark; Building 423 DK-2800 Kongens. Lyngby Denmark
| | - Esther Gera Cornelia Troost
- Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf; Dresden Germany
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology; Faculty of Medicine; University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus; Technische Universität Dresden; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf; Dresden Germany
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology; Faculty of Medicine; University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus; Technische Universität Dresden; Dresden Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner site Dresden; German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ); Heidelberg Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), partner site Dresden; Dresden Germany
| | - Aswin Louis Hoffmann
- Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf; Dresden Germany
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology; Faculty of Medicine; University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus; Technische Universität Dresden; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf; Dresden Germany
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology; Faculty of Medicine; University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus; Technische Universität Dresden; Dresden Germany
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Versteijne E, Lens E, van der Horst A, Bel A, Visser J, Punt CJA, Suker M, van Eijck CHJ, van Tienhoven G. Quality assurance of the PREOPANC trial (2012-003181-40) for preoperative radiochemotherapy in pancreatic cancer : The dummy run. Strahlenther Onkol 2017; 193:630-638. [PMID: 28608305 PMCID: PMC5519646 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-017-1153-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/09/2016] [Accepted: 05/11/2017] [Indexed: 01/09/2023]
Abstract
Background The Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group initiated the national, multicentre, controlled PREOPANC trial, randomising between preoperative radiochemotherapy and direct explorative laparotomy for patients with (borderline) resectable pancreatic cancer. The aim of this dummy run is to evaluate compliance with the radiotherapy protocol of this trial, and the quality of delineation and radiation plans. Methods Eleven radiation oncology departments open for accrual of patients in the PREOPANC trial were provided with all necessary information of a selected ‘dummy’ patient. Each institute was asked to delineate the target volumes, including gross tumour volume, internal gross tumour volume (iGTV), internal clinical target volume, and planning target volume. The institutions were also asked to provide a radiation treatment plan in accordance with the PREOPANC trial protocol. Results The range of the iGTV was 19.3–77.2 cm3 with a mean iGTV of 41.5 cm3 (standard deviation 14.8 cm3). Nine institutions made a treatment plan using an arc technique for treatment delivery, one an intensity modulated technique and one a 3-field conformal technique. All institutions reached the prescribed target coverage, without exceeding the organs at risk constraints. The institution with the 3‑field conformal technique was advised to use a more sophisticated technique (e. g. volumetric modulated arc therapy) to reduce the dose to the spinal cord. Conclusion All institutions showed acceptable deviations from the PREOPANC trial protocol and achieved an acceptable quality of delineation and radiation technique. All institutions were allowed to continue participation in the PREOPANC trial. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00066-017-1153-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Supplementary material: PREOPANC Protocol, version 11, radiotherapy part
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eva Versteijne
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Eelco Lens
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Astrid van der Horst
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Arjan Bel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jorrit Visser
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Cornelis J A Punt
- Department of Medical Oncology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Mustafa Suker
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus Medical Center, Erasmus University, 's-Gravendijkwal 230, 3015 CE, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Casper H J van Eijck
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus Medical Center, Erasmus University, 's-Gravendijkwal 230, 3015 CE, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Geertjan van Tienhoven
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|