The increased utilisation of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in radiation therapy (RT) has led to the implementation of MRI simulators for RT treatment planning and influenced the development of MRI‐guided treatment systems. There is extensive literature on the advantages of MRI for tumour volume and organ‐at‐risk delineation compared to computed tomography. MRI provides both anatomical and functional information for RT treatment planning (RTP) as well as quantitative information to assess tumour response for adaptive treatment. Despite many advantages of MRI in RT, introducing an MRI simulator into a RT department is a challenge. Collaboration between radiographers and radiation therapists is paramount in making the best use of this technology. The cross‐disciplinary training of radiographers and radiation therapists alike is an area rarely discussed; however, it is becoming an important requirement due to detailed imaging needs for advanced RT treatment techniques and with the emergence of hybrid treatment systems. This article will discuss the initial experiences of a radiation oncology department in implementing a dedicated MRI simulator for RTP, with a focus on the training required for both radiographer and RT staff. It will also address the future of MRI in RT and the implementation of MRI‐guided treatment systems, such as MRI‐Linacs, and the role of both radiation therapists and radiographers in this technology.
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) has proven value in radiotherapy treatment planning (RTP). MRI provides excellent soft tissue contrast, and improves lesion detection, definition and extent, allowing for increased conformal treatment. Recent installation of dedicated MRI simulators and MRI‐guided linear accelerators (MR Linacs) within radiation oncology departments has led to a sudden and rapid expansion in the scope of practice for many radiation therapists and MRI radiographers. The lack of current recommendations, guidelines and credentialing for both MRI radiographers and radiation therapists working within these atypical MRI environments poses a significant challenge for the education and training of staff, and the safe operation of these units. This commentary discusses current pathways for radiographers and radiation therapists entering the emerging field of MRI‐guided radiation oncology, and the future role of the MRI radiographer in addressing the unique issues found in non‐standard MRI environments. The authors draw on their collective experience as MRI radiographers assisting the rollout of dedicated MRI simulators in radiation oncology departments across Australia and reflect on the need for close collaboration between radiographers, radiation therapists and their respective departments. There is also a critical role for professional bodies to play in supporting existing and future roles in MRI and recognising advanced practitioner scope of practice.
Summary Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly being integrated into the radiation oncology workflow, due to its improved soft tissue contrast without additional exposure to ionising radiation. A review of MRI utilisation according to evidence based departmental guidelines was performed. Guideline utilisation rates were calculated to be 50% (true utilisation rate was 46%) of all new cancer patients treated with adjuvant or curative intent, excluding simple skin and breast cancer patients. Guideline utilisation rates were highest in the lower gastrointestinal and gynaecological subsites, with the lowest being in the upper gastrointestinal and thorax subsites. Head and neck (38% vs 45%) and CNS (46% vs 67%) cancers had the largest discrepancy between true and guideline utilisation rates due to unnamed reasons and non‐contemporaneous diagnostic imaging respectively. This report outlines approximate MRI utilisation rates in a tertiary radiation oncology service and may help guide planning for future departments contemplating installation of an MRI simulator.
Introduction Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) demonstrates superior soft tissue contrast and is increasingly being used in radiotherapy planning. This study evaluated the impact of an education workshop in minimising inter‐observer variation (IOV) for nasopharyngeal organs at risk (OAR) delineation on MRI. Methods Ten observers delineated 14 OARs on 4 retrospective nasopharyngeal MRI data sets. Standard contouring guidelines were provided pre‐workshop. Following an education workshop on MRI OAR delineation, observers blinded to their original contours repeated the 14 OAR delineations. For comparison, reference volumes were delineated by two head and neck radiation oncologists. IOV was evaluated using dice similarity coefficient (DSC), Hausdorff distance (HD) and relative volume. Location of largest deviations was evaluated with centroid values. Observer confidence pre‐ and post‐workshop was also recorded using a 6‐point Likert scale. The workshop was deemed beneficial for an OAR if ≥50% of observers mean scores improved in any metric and ≥50% of observers' confidence improved. Results All OARs had ≥50% of observers improve in at least one metric. Base of tongue, larynx, spinal cord and right temporal lobe were the only OARs achieving a mean DSC score of ≥0.7. Base of tongue, left and right lacrimal glands, larynx, left optic nerve and right parotid gland all exhibited statistically significant HD improvements post‐workshop ( P < 0.05). Brainstem and left and right temporal lobes all had statistically significant relative volume improvements post‐workshop ( P < 0.05). Post‐workshop observer confidence improvement was observed for all OARs ( P < 0.001). Conclusions The educational workshop reduced IOV and improved observers' confidence when delineating nasopharyngeal OARs on MRI.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.