Radiation therapy to the prostate involves increasingly sophisticated delivery techniques and changing fractionation schedules. With a low estimated α/β ratio, a larger dose per fraction would be beneficial, with moderate fractionation schedules rapidly becoming a standard of care. The integration of a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner and linear accelerator allows for accurate soft tissue tracking with the capacity to replan for the anatomy of the day. Extreme hypofractionation schedules become a possibility using the potentially automated steps of autosegmentation, MRI-only workflow, and real-time adaptive planning. The present report reviews the steps involved in hypofractionated adaptive MRI-guided prostate radiation therapy and addresses the challenges for implementation.

PurposeDaily magnetic resonance (MR)–guided radiation has the potential to improve stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for tumors of the liver. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) introduces unique variables that are untested clinically: electron return effect, MRI geometric distortion, MRI to radiation therapy isocenter uncertainty, multileaf collimator position error, and uncertainties with voxel size and tracking. All could lead to increased toxicity and/or local recurrences with SBRT. In this multi-institutional study, we hypothesized that direct visualization provided by MR guidance could allow the use of small treatment volumes to spare normal tissues while maintaining clinical outcomes despite the aforementioned uncertainties in MR-guided treatment.Methods and materialsPatients with primary liver tumors or metastatic lesions treated with MR-guided liver SBRT were reviewed at 3 institutions. Toxicity was assessed using National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Version 4. Freedom from local progression (FFLP) and overall survival were analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method and χ2 test.ResultsThe study population consisted of 26 patients: 6 hepatocellular carcinomas, 2 cholangiocarcinomas, and 18 metastatic liver lesions (44% colorectal metastasis). The median follow-up was 21.2 months. The median dose delivered was 50 Gy at 10 Gy/fraction. No grade 4 or greater gastrointestinal toxicities were observed after treatment. The 1-year and 2-year overall survival in this cohort is 69% and 60%, respectively. At the median follow-up, FFLP for this cohort was 80.4%. FFLP for patients with hepatocellular carcinomas, colorectal metastasis, and all other lesions were 100%, 75%, and 83%, respectively.ConclusionsThis study describes the first clinical outcomes of MR-guided liver SBRT. Treatment was well tolerated by patients with excellent local control. This study lays the foundation for future dose escalation and adaptive treatment for liver-based primary malignancies and/or metastatic disease.

Radiation therapy dose escalation using stereotactic body radiation therapy may significantly improve both local control (LC) and overall survival (OS) for patients with inoperable pancreas cancer. However, ablative dose cannot be routinely offered because of the risk of causing severe injury to adjacent normal organs. Stereotactic magnetic resonance (MR)-guided adaptive radiation therapy (SMART) represents a novel technique that may achieve safe delivery of ablative dose and improve long-term outcomes. Methods and Materials: We performed a single institution retrospective analysis of 35 consecutive pancreatic cancer patients treated with SMART in mid-inspiration breath hold on an MR-linear accelerator. Most had locally advanced disease (80%) and received induction chemotherapy (91.4%) for a median 3.9 months before stereotactic body radiation therapy. All were prescribed 5 fractions delivered in consecutive days to a median total dose of 50 Gy (BED 10 100 Gy 10), typically with a 120% to 130% hotspot. Elective nodal irradiation was delivered to 20 (57.1%) patients. No patient had fiducial markers placed and all were treated with continuous intrafraction MR visualization and automatic beam triggering. Results: With median follow-up of 10.3 months from SMART, acute (2.9%) and late (2.9%) grade 3 toxicities were uncommon. Oneyear LC, distant metastasis-free survival, progression-free survival, cause-specific survival, and OS were 87.8%, 63.1%, 52.4%, 77.6%, and 58.9%, respectively.

Magnetic resonance-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) offers advantages for image guidance for radiotherapy treatments as compared to conventional computed tomography (CT)-based modalities. The superior soft tissue contrast of magnetic resonance (MR) enables an improved visualization of the gross tumor and adjacent normal tissues in the treatment of abdominal and thoracic malignancies. Online adaptive capabilities, coupled with advanced motion management of real-time tracking of the tumor, directly allow for high-precision inter-/intrafraction localization. The primary aim of this case series is to describe MR-based interventions for localizing targets not well-visualized with conventional image-guided technologies. The abdominal and thoracic sites of the lung, kidney, liver, and gastric targets are described to illustrate the technological advancement of MR-guidance in radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: Magnetic resonance–guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) has recently become commercially available, offering the opportunity to accurately image and target moving tumors as compared with computed tomography-guided radiation therapy (CTgRT) systems. However, the costs of delivering care with these 2 modalities remain poorly described. With localized unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma as an example, we were able to use time-driven activity-based costing to determine the cost of treatment on linear accelerators with CTgRT compared with MRgRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Process maps, informed via interviews with departmental personnel, were created for each phase of the care cycle. Stereotactic body radiation therapy was delivered at 50 Gy in 5 fractions, either with CTgRT using fiducial placement, deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) with real-time position management, and volumetric-modulated arc therapy, or with MRgRT using real-time tumor gating, DIBH, and static-gantry intensity-modulated radiation therapy. RESULTS: Direct clinical costs were $7,306 for CTgRT and $8,622 for MRgRT comprising personnel costs ($3,752 v $3,603), space and equipment costs ($2,912 v $4,769), and materials costs ($642 v $250). Increased MRgRT costs may be mitigated by forgoing CT simulation ($322 saved) or shortening treatment to 3 fractions ($1,815 saved). Conversely, adaptive treatment with MRgRT would result in an increase in cost of $529 per adaptive treatment. CONCLUSION: MRgRT offers real-time image guidance, avoidance of fiducial placement, and ability to use adaptive treatments; however, it is 18% more expensive than CTgRT under baseline assumptions. Future studies that elucidate the magnitude of potential clinical benefits of MRgRT are warranted to clarify the value of using this technology.

Purpose With advance magnetic resonance (MR)‐guided online adaptive radiotherapy (MRgoART) relying on calculation‐based intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA), accurate and sensitive QA of the multileaf collimator (MLC) becomes an increasingly essential component for routine machine QA. As such, it is important to assure compliance with the AAPM TG142 guidelines to supplement calculation‐based QA methods for an online adaptive radiotherapy program. We have developed and implemented an efficient and highly sensitive QA procedure using an ionization chamber profiler (ICP) array to enable real‐time characterization of the positional accuracy of a double‐focused and double‐stacked MLC on a clinical MR‐guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) system and to supplement calculation‐based QA for an MRgoART program. Methods An in‐house MR‐compatible jig was used to position the ICP (detector resolution 5 mm on X/Y axis) at an extended SDD of 108.4 cm to enable each MLC leaf (8.3 mm leaf width at isocenter) to be uniquely determined by two neighboring ion chambers. The MRgRT linac system utilizes a novel jawless, double‐focused, and double‐stacked MLC design such that the upper bank (MLC1) and lower bank (MLC2) are offset by half a leaf width. Positional accuracy was characterized by three methods: single bank half‐beam block (HBB) at central axis, forward slash diagonal (FSD), and backslash diagonal (BSD) at off‐axis. Measurements were performed for each bank in which each leaf occludes half of a detector. A corresponding reference field with the MLC retracted from occlusion was measured. The sensitivities of HBB, FSD, and BSD were evaluated by introducing 0.5–2.5 mm of known errors in 0.5 mm increments, in both positive and negative directions. The relationship between detector response and MLC error was established. Over a 6‐month longitudinal assessment, we have evaluated MLC performance with weekly QA of HBB among cardinal angles, and monthly QA of FSD and BSD. Results A strong correlation was found between detector response of percentage dose difference and MLC positional error introduced (N = 350 introduced errors) for both HBB and FSD/BSD with coefficient of determination of 0.999 and 0.977, respectively. The relationship between detector response to MLC positional change was found to be 20.65%/mm for HBB and 11.14%/mm for FSD and BSD. At baseline, the mean MLC positional accuracy averaged across all leaves was 0.06 ± 0.27 mm (HBB), 0.04 ± 0.52 mm (FSD), −0.06 ± 0.51 mm (BSD). The mean MLC positional accuracy relative to baseline over the 6‐month assessment was found to be highly reproducible at 0.00 ± 0.12 mm (HBB; N = 28 weeks), −0.02 ± 0.19 mm (FSD; N = 6 months), −0.03 ± 0.19 mm (BSD; N = 6 months). Conclusions Positional accuracy of a novel jawless, double‐focused, double‐stacked MLC has been characterized and monitored over 6 months with an efficient, highly sensitive, and robust method using an ICP array. This routine QA method supplements calculation‐based IMRT QA for an online adaptive radio...

PurposeTo describe and characterize daily machine quality assurance (QA) for an MR‐guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) linac system, in addition to reporting a longitudinal assessment of the dosimetric and mechanical stability over a 7‐month period of clinical operation.MethodsQuality assurance procedures were developed to evaluate MR imaging/radiation isocenter, imaging and patient handling system, and linear accelerator stability. A longitudinal assessment was characterized for safety interlocks, laser and imaging isocenter coincidence, imaging and radiation (RT) isocentricity, radiation dose rate and output, couch motion, and MLC positioning. A cylindrical water phantom and an MR‐compatible A1SL detector were utilized. MR and RT isocentricity and MLC positional accuracy was quantified through dose measured with a 0.40 cm2 x 0.83 cm2 field at each cardinal angle. The relationship between detector response to MR/RT isocentricity and MLC positioning was established through introducing known errors in phantom position.ResultsCorrelation was found between detector response and introduced positional error (N = 27) with coefficients of determination of 0.9996 (IEC‐X), 0.9967 (IEC‐Y), 0.9968 (IEC‐Z) in each respective shift direction. The relationship between dose (DoseMR/RT+MLC) and the vector magnitude of MLC and MR/RT positional error (Errormag) was calculated to be a nonlinear response and resembled a quadratic function: DoseMR/RT+MLC[%] = −0.0253 Errormag [mm]2 − 0.0195 Errormag [mm]. For the temporal assessment (N = 7 months), safety interlocks were functional. Laser coincidence to MR was within ±2.0 mm (99.6%) and ±1.0 mm (86.8%) over the 7‐month assessment. IGRT position–reposition shifts were within ±2.0 mm (99.4%) and ±1.0 mm (92.4%). Output was within ±3% (99.4%). Mean MLC and MR/RT isocenter accuracy was 1.6 mm, averaged across cardinal angles for the 7‐month period.ConclusionsThe linac and IGRT accuracy of an MR‐guided radiotherapy system has been validated and monitored over seven months for daily QA. Longitudinal assessment demonstrated a drift in dose rate, but temporal assessment of output, MLC position, and isocentricity has been stable.

In ABC-assisted DIBH, large positional variation can occur in some patients, due to their different BH maneuvers. The authors' study has shown that OTS can be a valuable tool for real-time quality control of ABC-assisted DIBH.