Dosimetric Implications of Computerised Tomography-Only versus Magnetic Resonance-Fusion Contouring in Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer

Prostate Volume Changes during Extreme and Moderately Hypofractionated Magnetic Resonance Image-guided Radiotherapy

AIMS

Prostate morphological changes during external beam radiotherapy are poorly understood. Excellent soft-tissue visualisation offered by magnetic resonance image-guided radiotherapy (MRIgRT) provides an opportunity to better understand such changes. The aim of this study was to quantify prostate volume and dimension changes occurring during extreme and moderately hypofractionated schedules.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty prostate cancer patients treated on the Unity 1.5 Tesla magnetic resonance linear accelerator (MRL) were retrospectively reviewed. The cohort comprised patients treated with 36.25 Gy in five fractions (n = 20) and 60 Gy in 20 fractions (n = 20). The volume of the delineated prostates on reference planning computed tomography (fused with MRI) and daily T2-weighted 2-min session images acquired on Unity were charted. Forty planning computed tomography and 500 MRL prostate volumes were evaluated. The mean absolute and relative change in prostate volume during radiotherapy was compared using a paired t-test (P value <0.01 considered significant to control for multiple comparisons). The maximum dimension of the delineated prostate was measured in three isocentric planes.

RESULTS

Significant prostate volume changes, relative to MRL imaging fraction 1 (MRL#1), were seen at all time points for the five-fraction group. The peak mean relative volume increase was 21% (P < 0.001), occurring at MRL#3 and MRL#4 after 14.5 and 21.75 Gy, respectively. Prostate expansion was greatest in the superior-inferior direction; the peak mean maximal extension was 5.9 mm. The maximal extension in the left-right and anterior-posterior directions measured 1.1 and 2.2 mm, respectively. For the 20-fraction group, prostate volume increased relative to MRL#1, for all treatment time points. The mean relative volume increase was 11% (P < 0.001) at MRL#5 after 12 Gy, it then fluctuated between 8 and 13%. From MRL#5 to MRL#20, the volume increase was significant (P < 0.01) for 12 of 16 time points calculated. The peak mean maximal extension in the superior-inferior direction was 3.1 mm. The maximal extension in the left-right and anterior-posterior directions measured 1.7 and 3.7 mm, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Significant prostate volume and dimension changes occur during extreme and moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy. The extent of change was greater during extreme hypofractionation. MRIgRT offers the opportunity to reveal, quantify and correct for this deformation.

Safety of stereotactic body radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer without treatment planning MRI

Background

The use of treatment planning prostate MRI for Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) is largely a standard, yet not all patients can receive MRI for a variety of clinical reasons. Thus, we aim to investigate the safety of patients who received CT alone based SBRT planning for the definitive treatment of localized prostate cancer.

Methods

Our study analyzed 3410 patients with localized prostate cancer who were treated with SBRT at a single academic institution between 2006 and 2020. Acute and late toxicity was evaluated using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) questionnaires evaluated QOL and PSA nadir was evaluated to detect biochemical failures.

Results

A total of 162 patients (4.75%) received CT alone for treatment planning. The CT alone group was older relative to the MRI group (69.9 vs 67.2, p < 0.001) and had higher risk and grade disease (p < 0.001). Additionally, the CT group exhibited a trend in larger CTVs (82.56 cc vs 76.90 cc; p = 0.055), lower total radiation doses (p = 0.048), and more frequent pelvic nodal radiation versus the MRI group (p < 0.001). There were only two reported cases of Grade 3 + toxicity within the CT alone group. Quality of life data within the CT alone group revealed declines in urinary and bowel scores at one month with return to baseline at subsequent follow up. Early biochemical failure data at median time of 2.3 years revealed five failures by Phoenix definition.

Conclusions

While clinical differences existed between the MRI and CT alone group, we observed tolerable toxicity profiles in the CT alone cohort, which was further supported by EPIC questionnaire data. The overall clinical outcomes appear comparable in patients unable to receive MRI for their SBRT treatment plan with early clinical follow up.

The rationale for MR-only delineation and planning: retrospective CT–MR registration and target volume analysis for prostate radiotherapy

Aim:

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is indispensable for treatment planning in prostate radiotherapy (PR). Registration of MRI when compared to planning CT (pCT) is prone to uncertainty and this is rarely reported. In this study, we have compared three different types of registration methods to justify the direct use of MRI in PR.

Methods and materials:

Thirty patients treated for PR were retrospectively selected for this study and all underwent both CT and MRI. The MR scans were registered to the pCT using markers, focused and unfocussed methods and their registration are REGM, REGF, and REGNF, respectively. Registration comparison is done using the translational differences of three axes from the centre-of-mass values of gross tumour volume (GTV) generated using MRI.

Results:

The average difference in all three axes (x, y, z) is (1, 2·5, 2·3 mm) and (1, 3, 2·3 mm) for REGF-REFNF and REGF-REGM, respectively. MR-based GTV Volume is less in comparison to CT-based GTV and it is significantly different (p < 0·001).

Findings:

Image registration uncertainty is unavoidable for a regular CT–MR workflow. Additional planning target volume margin ranging from 2 to 3mm could be avoided if MR-only workflow is employed. This reduction in the margin is beneficial for small tumours treated with hypofractionation.

To evaluate volume changes on computerized tomography scan and magnetic resonance imaging-based delineation during radiotherapy treatment planning in prostate cancer

Aim

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the impact of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) on radiotherapy target volume changes in prostate cancer.

Materials and Methods

Ten patients with localized prostate cancer receiving radical radiotherapy were included in the study. Computerized tomography (CT) simulation was done with adequate immobilization, and pelvic MRI was also done at the same time. The two were then registered on eclipse planning system and fused. Target delineation (gross tumor volume [GTV] and clinical target volume [CTV]) was done on both the image sets separately and their volumes were compared.

Results

In the current study, it has been found that the CT image-based contouring overestimated the GTV and CTV with 35.4% and 21.7%, respectively, as compared to that by MRI images. The difference observed was statistically significant in the case of GTV, whereas it was not statistically significant for CTV.

Conclusions

It can be concluded that MRI is found to be a better modality for GTV delineation, as it gives superior soft-tissue contrast.

Prostate cancer - Advantages and disadvantages of MR-guided RT

External beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer is an optimal treatment choice for men with localised prostate cancer and is associated with long term disease control in most patients. Image-guided prostate radiotherapy is standard of care, however, current techniques can include invasive procedures with imaging of poor soft tissue resolution, thus limiting accuracy. MRI is the imaging of choice for local prostate cancer staging and in radiotherapy planning has been shown to reduce target volume and reduce inter-observer prostate contouring variability. The ultimate aim would be to have a MR-only workflow for prostate radiotherapy. Within this article, we discuss these opportunities and challenges, relevant due to the increasing availability of MR-guided radiotherapy. Prospective multi-centre studies are underway to determine the feasibility of MR-guided prostate radiotherapy and daily adaptive replanning. In parallel, development and adaptation of the existing radiotherapy multidisciplinary workforce is essential to enable an efficient and effective MR-guided radiotherapy workflow. This technology potentially provides us with the anatomical and biological information to further improve outcomes for our patients.