An exploratory analysis of MR-guided fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy in patients with brain metastases

Experimental small fields output factors determination for an MR-linac according to the measuring position and orientation of the detector

Purpose. To investigate the effect of the position and orientation of the detector and its influence on the determination of output factors (OF) for small fields for a linear accelerator (MR-linac) integrated with 1.5 T magnetic resonance following the TRS-483 formalism.Methods. OF were measured for small fields in the central axis following the recommendations of the manufacturer and at the dose maximum following the TRS-483 formalism. OF were determined using a microDiamond (MD), a Semiflex (SF) 31021 ionization chamber, Gafchromic EBT3 film and were calculated in Monaco treatment planning system (TPS). Additionally, the orientation response of SF was evaluated, placing it in parallel and perpendicular direction to the radiation beam. The values were compared taking film measurements as reference. The corrected factors,ΩQclinical,msrfclinical,msr, required the use of output correction factorkQclinical,msrfclinical,msrtaken from previous reports. Finally, there are proposed experimentalkQclinical,msrfclinical,msrfor SF and MD, following the measured values in this work.Results. In fields smaller than 4 cm, the positioning of the SF and MD in the central axis or at the point of dose maximum affects the reading significantly with differences of up to 6% and 4%, respectively. For the data calculated in the TPS, the maximum difference of the OF between MD and TPS for fields greater than 2 cm was 0.6% and below this field size the TPS underestimates the OF up to 10.6%. The orientation (parallel or perpendicular) of the SF regarding the radiation beam has a considerable impact on the OF for fields smaller than 3 cm, showing a variation up to 10% for the field of 0.5 cm.Conclusion. This study provides valuable information on the challenges and limitations of measuring output factors in small fields. The outcomes have important implications for the practice of radiosurgery, underscoring the need for accuracy in detector placement and orientation, as well as the importance of using more advanced technologies and more robust measurement methods.

Evaluating contouring accuracy and dosimetry impact of current MRI-guided adaptive radiation therapy for brain metastases: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) guided adaptive radiotherapy (MRgART) has gained increasing attention, showing clinical advantages over conventional radiotherapy. However, there are concerns regarding online target delineation and modification accuracy. In our study, we aimed to investigate the accuracy of brain metastases (BMs) contouring and its impact on dosimetry in 1.5 T MRI-guided online adaptive fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT).

METHODS

Eighteen patients with 64 BMs were retrospectively evaluated. Pre-treatment 3.0 T MRI scans (gadolinium contrast-enhanced T1w, T1c) and initial 1.5 T MR-Linac scans (non-enhanced online-T1, T2, and FLAIR) were used for gross target volume (GTV) contouring. Five radiation oncologists independently contoured GTVs on pre-treatment T1c and initial online-T1, T2, and FLAIR images. We assessed intra-observer and inter-observer variations and analysed the dosimetry impact through treatment planning based on GTVs generated by online MRI, simulating the current online adaptive radiotherapy practice.

RESULTS

The average Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) for inter-observer comparison were 0.79, 0.54, 0.59, and 0.64 for pre-treatment T1c, online-T1, T2, and FLAIR, respectively. Inter-observer variations were significantly smaller for the 3.0 T pre-treatment T1c than for the contrast-free online 1.5 T MR scans (P < 0.001). Compared to the T1c contours, the average DSC index of intra-observer contouring was 0.52‒0.55 for online MRIs. For BMs larger than 3 cm3, visible on all image sets, the average DSC indices were 0.69, 0.71 and 0.64 for online-T1, T2, and FLAIR, respectively, compared to the pre-treatment T1c contour. For BMs < 3 cm3, the average visibility rates were 22.3%, 41.3%, and 51.8% for online-T1, T2, and FLAIR, respectively. Simulated adaptive planning showed an average prescription dose coverage of 63.4‒66.9% when evaluated by ground truth planning target volumes (PTVs) generated on pre-treatment T1c, reducing it from over 99% coverage by PTVs generated on online MRIs.

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy of online target contouring was unsatisfactory for the current MRI-guided online adaptive FSRT. Small lesions had poor visibility on 1.5 T non-contrast-enhanced MR-Linac images. Contour inaccuracies caused a one-third drop in prescription dose coverage for the target volume. Future studies should explore the feasibility of contrast agent administration during daily treatment in MRI-guided online adaptive FSRT procedures.