Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) offers superior soft-tissue contrast as compared with computed tomography (CT), which is conventionally used for radiation therapy treatment planning (RTP) and patient positioning verification, resulting in improved target definition. The 2 modalities are co-registered for RTP; however, this introduces a systematic error. Implementing an MRI-only radiation therapy workflow would be advantageous because this error would be eliminated, the patient pathway simplified, and patient dose reduced. Unlike CT, in MRI there is no direct relationship between signal intensity and electron density; however, various methodologies for MRI-only RTP have been reported. A systematic review of these methods was undertaken. The PRISMA guidelines were followed. Embase and Medline databases were searched (1996 to March, 2017) for studies that generated synthetic CT scans (sCT)s for MRI-only radiation therapy. Sixty-one articles met the inclusion criteria. This review showed that MRI-only RTP techniques could be grouped into 3 categories: (1) bulk density override; (2) atlas-based; and (3) voxel-based techniques, which all produce an sCT scan from MR images. Bulk density override techniques either used a single homogeneous or multiple tissue override. The former produced large dosimetric errors (>2%) in some cases and the latter frequently required manual bone contouring. Atlas-based techniques used both single and multiple atlases and included methods incorporating pattern recognition techniques. Clinically acceptable sCTs were reported, but atypical anatomy led to erroneous results in some cases. Voxel-based techniques included methods using routine and specialized MRI sequences, namely ultra-short echo time imaging. High-quality sCTs were produced; however, use of multiple sequences led to long scanning times increasing the chances of patient movement. Using nonroutine sequences would currently be problematic in most radiation therapy centers. Atlas-based and voxel-based techniques were found to be the most clinically useful methods, with some studies reporting dosimetric differences of <1% between planning on the sCT and CT and <1-mm deviations when using sCTs for positional verification.

No abstract

BackgroundThis study aimed to quantify the variation in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma gross tumour volume (GTV) delineation between CT, MR and FDG PET-CT imaging.MethodsA prospective, single centre, pilot study was undertaken where 11 patients with locally advanced oropharyngeal cancers (2 tonsil, 9 base of tongue primaries) underwent pre-treatment, contrast enhanced, FDG PET-CT and MR imaging, all performed in a radiotherapy treatment mask. CT, MR and CT-MR GTVs were contoured by 5 clinicians (2 radiologists and 3 radiation oncologists). A semi-automated segmentation algorithm was used to contour PET GTVs. Volume and positional analyses were undertaken, accounting for inter-observer variation, using linear mixed effects models and contour comparison metrics respectively.ResultsSignificant differences in mean GTV volume were found between CT (11.9 cm3) and CT-MR (14.1 cm3), p < 0.006, CT-MR and PET (9.5 cm3), p < 0.0009, and MR (12.7 cm3) and PET, p < 0.016. Substantial differences in GTV position were found between all modalities with the exception of CT-MR and MR GTVs. A mean of 64 %, 74 % and 77 % of the PET GTVs were included within the CT, MR and CT-MR GTVs respectively. A mean of 57 % of the MR GTVs were included within the CT GTV; conversely a mean of 63 % of the CT GTVs were included within the MR GTV. CT inter-observer variability was found to be significantly higher in terms of position and/or volume than both MR and CT-MR (p < 0.05). Significant differences in GTV volume were found between GTV volumes delineated by radiologists (9.7 cm3) and oncologists (14.6 cm3) for all modalities (p = 0.001).ConclusionsThe use of different imaging modalities produced significantly different GTVs, with no single imaging technique encompassing all potential GTV regions. The use of MR reduced inter-observer variability. These data suggest delineation based on multimodality imaging has the potential to improve accuracy of GTV definition.Trial registrationISRCTN Registry: ISRCTN34165059. Registered 2nd February 2015.

The use of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging scans alone for radiation therapy treatment planning (MR-only planning) has been highlighted as one method of improving patient outcomes. Recent technologic advances have meant that introducing MR-only planning to the clinic is becoming a reality, with several specialist radiation therapy clinics using this technique for treatment. As such, substantial efforts are being made to introduce this technique into widespread clinical implementation. A systematic review of publications investigating the clinical implementation of pelvic MR-only radiation therapy treatment planning was undertaken following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The Medline, Embase, Scopus, Science Direct, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Web of Science databases were searched (timespan: all years to January 2, 2019). Twenty-six articles met the inclusion criteria. The studies were grouped into the following categories: (1) MR acquisition and synthetic computed tomography generation verification, (2) MR distortion quantification and phantom development, (3) clinical validation of patient treatment positioning in an MRonly workflow, and (4) MR-only commissioning processes. Key conclusions from this review are (1) MR-only planning has been implemented clinically for prostate cancer treatments; (2) a substantial amount of work remains to translate MR-only planning into widespread clinical implementation for all pelvic sites; (3) MR scanner distortions are no longer a barrier to MR-only planning, but they must be managed appropriately; (4) MR-onlyebased patient positioning verification shows promise, but limited evidence is reported in the literature and further investigation is required; and (5) a number of MR-only commissioning processes have been reported, which can aid centers as they undertake local commissioning; however, this needs to be formalized in guidance from national bodies.

Atlas‐based autosegmentation is an established tool for segmenting structures for CT‐planned head and neck radiotherapy. MRI is being increasingly integrated into the planning process. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility of MRI‐based, atlas‐based autosegmentation for organs at risk (OAR) and lymph node levels, and to compare the segmentation accuracy with CT‐based autosegmentation. Fourteen patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer in a prospective imaging study underwent a T1‐weighted MRI and a PET‐CT (with dedicated contrast‐enhanced CT) in an immobilization mask. Organs at risk (orbits, parotids, brainstem, and spinal cord) and the left level II lymph node region were manually delineated on the CT and MRI separately. A ‘leave one out’ approach was used to automatically segment structures onto the remaining images separately for CT and MRI. Contour comparison was performed using multiple positional metrics: Dice index, mean distance to conformity (MDC), sensitivity index (Se Idx), and inclusion index (Incl Idx). Automatic segmentation using MRI of orbits, parotids, brainstem, and lymph node level was acceptable with a DICE coefficient of 0.73−0.91, MDC 2.0−5.1 mm, Se Idx 0.64−0.93, Incl Idx 0.76−0.93. Segmentation of the spinal cord was poor (Dice coefficient 0.37). The process of automatic segmentation was significantly better on MRI compared to CT for orbits, parotid glands, brainstem, and left lymph node level II by multiple positional metrics; spinal cord segmentation based on MRI was inferior compared with CT. Accurate atlas‐based automatic segmentation of OAR and lymph node levels is feasible using T1‐MRI; segmentation of the spinal cord was found to be poor. Comparison with CT‐based automatic segmentation suggests that the process is equally as, or more accurate, using MRI. These results support further translation of MRI‐based segmentation methodology into clinical practice.PACS number(s): 87.55.de