The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that an inexpensive 3D printer can be used to manufacture patient‐specific bolus for external beam therapy, and to show we can accurately model this printed bolus in our treatment planning system for accurate treatment delivery. Percent depth‐dose measurements and tissue maximum ratios were used to determine the characteristics of the printing materials, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene and polylactic acid, as bolus material with physical density of 1.04 and 1.2 g/cm3, and electron density of 3.38×1023electrons/cm3 and 3.80×1023 electrons/cm3, respectively. Dose plane comparisons using Gafchromic EBT2 film and the RANDO phantom were used to verify accurate treatment planning. We accurately modeled a printing material in Eclipse treatment planning system, assigning it a Hounsfield unit of 260. We were also able to verify accurate treatment planning using gamma analysis for dose plane comparisons. With gamma criteria of 5% dose difference and 2 mm DTA, we were able to have 86.5% points passing, and with gamma criteria of 5% dose difference and 3 mm DTA, we were able to have 95% points passing. We were able to create a patient‐specific bolus using an inexpensive 3D printer and model it in our treatment planning system for accurate treatment delivery.PACS numbers: 87.53.Jw, 87.53.Kn, 87.56.ng

Background and Purpose: Stereotactic body radiation therapy delivered using MR-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) and automatic breathold gating has shown to improve overall survival for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) patients. The goal of our study was to evaluate feasibility of treating LAPC patients using abdominal compression (AC) and impact of potential intrafraction motion on planned dose on a 1.5T MR-linac. Methods & Materials: Ten LAPC patients were treated with MRgRT to 50 Gy in 5 fractions with daily online plan adaptation and AC. Three orthogonal plane cine MRI were acquired to assess stability of AC pressure in minimizing tumor motion. Three sets of T2w MR scans, pre-treatment (MRI pre ), verification (MRI ver ) and posttreatment (MRI post ) MRI, were acquired for every fraction. A total of 150 MRIs and doses were evaluated. Impact of intrafraction organ motion was evaluated by propagating pre-treatment plan and structures to MRI ver and MRI post , editing contours and recalculating doses. Gross tumor volume (GTV) coverage and organs-at-risk (OARs) doses were evaluated on MRI ver and MRI post . Results: Median total treatment time was 75.5 (49-132) minutes. Median tumor motion in AC for all fractions was 1.7 (0.7-7), 2.1 (0.6-6.3) and 4.1 (1.4-10.0) mm in anterior-posterior, left-right and superior-inferior direction. Median GTV V50Gy was 78.7%. Median D5cm 3 stomach_duodenum was 24.2 (18.4-29.3) Gy on MRI ver and 24.2 (18.3-30.5) Gy on MRI post . Median D5cm 3 small bowel was 24.3 (18.2-32.8) Gy on MRI ver and 24.4 (16.0-33.6) Gy on MRI post . Conclusion: Dose-volume constraints for OARs were exceeded for some fractions on MRI ver and MRI post . Longer follow up is needed to see the dosimetric impact of intrafraction motion on gastrointestinal toxicity.

Background and purpose: Magnetic Resonance (MR)-only planning has been implemented clinically for radiotherapy of prostate cancer. However, fewer studies exist regarding the overall success rate of MR-only workflows. We report on successes and challenges of implementing MR-only workflows for prostate. Materials and methods: A total of 585 patients with prostate cancer underwent an MR-only simulation and planning between 06/2016-06/2018. MR simulation included images for contouring, synthetic-CT generation and fiducial identification. Workflow interruptions occurred that required a backup CT, a re-simulation or an update to our current quality assurance (QA) process. The challenges were prospectively evaluated and classified into synthetic-CT generation, motion/artifacts in the MRs, fiducial QA and bowel preparation guidelines. Results: MR-only simulation was successful in 544 (93.2%) patients. In seventeen patients (2.9%), reconstruction of synthetic-CT failed due to patient size, femur angulation, or failure to determine the body contour. Twentyfour patients (4.1%) underwent a repeat/backup CT scan because of artifacts on the MR such as image blur due to patient motion or biopsy/surgical artifacts that hampered identification of the implanted fiducial markers. In patients requiring large coverage due to nodal involvement, inhomogeneity artifacts were resolved by using a two-stack acquisition and adaptive inhomogeneity correction. Bowel preparation guidelines were modified to address frequent rectum/gas issues due to longer MR scan time. Conclusions: MR-only simulation has been successfully implemented for a majority of patients in the clinic. However, MR-CT or CT-only pathway may still be needed for patients where MR-only solution fails or patients with MR contraindications.

No abstract

Background To evaluate inter-fractional variations in bladder and rectum during prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and determine dosimetric and clinical consequences. Methods Eighty-five patients with 510 computed tomography (CT) images were analyzed. Median prescription dose was 40 Gy in 5 fractions. Patients were instructed to maintain a full bladder and empty rectum prior to simulation and each treatment. A single reviewer delineated organs at risk (OARs) on the simulation (Sim-CT) and Cone Beam CTs (CBCT) for analyses. Results Bladder and rectum volume reductions were observed throughout the course of SBRT, with largest mean reductions of 86.9 mL (19.0%) for bladder and 6.4 mL (8.7%) for rectum noted at fraction #5 compared to Sim-CT (P < 0.01). Higher initial Sim-CT bladder volumes were predictive for greater reduction in absolute bladder volume during treatment (ρ = − 0.69; P < 0.01). Over the course of SBRT, there was a small but significant increase in bladder mean dose (+ 4.5 ± 12.8%; P < 0.01) but no significant change in the D2cc (+ 0.8 ± 4.0%; P = 0.28). The mean bladder trigone displacement was in the anterior direction (+ 4.02 ± 6.59 mm) with a corresponding decrease in mean trigone dose (− 3.6 ± 9.6%; P < 0.01) and D2cc (− 6.2 ± 15.6%; P < 0.01). There was a small but significant increase in mean rectal dose (+ 7.0 ± 12.9%, P < 0.01) but a decrease in rectal D2cc (− 2.2 ± 10.1%; P = 0.04). No significant correlations were found between relative bladder volume changes, bladder trigone displacements, or rectum volume changes with rates of genitourinary or rectal toxicities. Conclusions Despite smaller than expected bladder and rectal volumes at the time of treatment compared to the planning scans, dosimetric impact was minimal and not predictive of detrimental clinical outcomes. These results cast doubt on the need for excessively strict bladder filling and rectal emptying protocols in the context of image guided prostate SBRT and prospective studies are needed to determine its necessity.