Dosimetric impact of geometric distortions in an MRI-only proton therapy workflow for lung, liver and pancreas

Dumlu, Hatice Selcen; Meschini, Giorgia; Kurz, Christopher; Kamp, Florian; Baroni, Guido; Belka, Claus; Paganelli, Chiara; Riboldi, Marco

doi:10.1016/j.zemedi.2020.10.002

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although these distortions are mainly corrected by vendorsupplied algorithms, residual dose effects might exist. Distortions up to 1 mm at the tumor location and 3 mm at the periphery were reported for liver with negligible dose effects on photon SBRT plans (Han et al 2019, Dumlu et al 2020, Hasler et al 2020. We quantified potential dose effects on proton plans due to MRI distortions against 3 mm uniform dislocations within the beam plane for a subset of our patients to simulate the worst-case MRI distortion, and found that GTV stayed fully covered by the prescription dose.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Toward MR-integrated proton therapy: modeling the potential benefits for liver tumors

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-integrated proton therapy (MRiPT) is envisioned to improve treatment quality for many cancer patients. However, given the availability of alternative image-guided strategies, its clinical need is yet to be justified. This study aims to compare the expected clinical outcomes of MRiPT with standard of practice cone-beam CT (CBCT)-guided PT, and other MR-guided methods, i.e. offline MR-guided PT and MR-linac, for treatment of liver tumors. Clinical outcomes were assessed by quantifying the dosimetric and biological impact of target margin reduction enabled by each image-guided approach. Planning target volume (PTV) margins were calculated using random and systematic setup, delineation and motion uncertainties, which were quantified by analyzing longitudinal MRI data for 10 patients with liver tumors. Proton treatment plans were created using appropriate PTV margins for each image-guided PT method. Photon plans with margins equivalent to MRiPT were generated to represent MR-linac. Normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) of the uninvolved liver were compared. We found that PTV margin can be reduced by 20% and 40% for offline MR-guided PT and MRiPT, respectively, compared with CBCT-guided PT. Furthermore, clinical target volume expansion could be largely alleviated when delineating on MRI rather than CT. Dosimetric implications included decreased equivalent mean dose of the uninvolved liver, i.e. up to 24.4 Gy and 27.3 Gy for offline MR-guided PT and MRiPT compared to CBCT-guided PT, respectively. Considering Child–Pugh score increase as endpoint, NTCP of the uninvolved liver was significantly decreased for MRiPT compared to CBCT-guided PT (up to 48.4%, p < 0.01), offline MR-guided PT (up to 12.9%, p < 0.01) and MR-linac (up to 30.8%, p < 0.05). Target underdose was possible in the absence of MRI-guidance (D90 reduction up to 4.2 Gy in 20% of cases). In conclusion, MRiPT has the potential to significantly reduce healthy liver toxicities in patients with liver tumors. It is superior to other image-guided techniques currently available.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%