Comparison of Prospectively Generated Glioma Treatment Plans Clinically Delivered on Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)-Linear Accelerator (MR-Linac) Versus Conventional Linac: Predicted and Measured Skin Dose

Introduction: Magnetic resonance imaging-linear accelerator radiotherapy is an innovative technology that requires special consideration for secondary electron interactions within the magnetic field, which can alter dose deposition at air–tissue interfaces. As part of ongoing quality assurance and quality improvement of new radiotherapy technologies, the purpose of this study was to evaluate skin dose modelled from the treatment planning systems of a magnetic resonance imaging-linear accelerator and a conventional linear accelerator, and then correlate with in vivo measurements of delivered skin dose from each linear accelerator. Methods: In this prospective cohort study, 37 consecutive glioma patients had treatment planning completed and approved prior to radiotherapy initiation using commercial treatment planning systems: a Monte Carlo-based algorithm for magnetic resonance imaging-linear accelerator or a convolution-based algorithm for conventional linear accelerator. In vivo skin dose was measured using an optically stimulated luminescent dosimeter. Results: Monte Carlo-based magnetic resonance imaging-linear accelerator plans and convolution-based conventional linear accelerator plans had similar dosimetric parameters for target volumes and organs-at-risk. However, magnetic resonance imaging-linear accelerator plans had 1.52 Gy higher mean dose to air cavities (P < .0001) and 1.10 Gy higher mean dose to skin (P < .0001). In vivo skin dose was 14.5% greater for magnetic resonance imaging-linear accelerator treatments (P = .0027), and was more accurately predicted by Monte Carlo-based calculation (ρ = 0.95, P < .0001) versus convolution-based (ρ = 0.80, P = .0096). Conclusion: This is the first prospective dosimetric comparison of glioma patients clinically treated on both magnetic resonance imaging-linear accelerator and conventional linear accelerator. Our findings suggest that skin doses were significantly greater with magnetic resonance imaging-linear accelerator plans but correlated better with in vivo measurements of actual skin dose from delivered treatments. Future magnetic resonance imaging-linear accelerator planning processes are being designed to account for skin dosimetry and treatment delivery.

[1]  Chen-Yu Huang,et al.  Effects on skin dose from unwanted air gaps under bolus in an MR-guided linear accelerator (MR-linac) system , 2021, Physics in medicine and biology.

[2]  M. Wintermark,et al.  Intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) modeling of diffusion MRI during chemoradiation predicts therapeutic response in IDH wildtype glioblastoma , 2021, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[3]  N. Lipsman,et al.  Quantitating Inter-fraction Target Dynamics during Concurrent Chemoradiation for Glioblastoma: A Prospective Serial Imaging Study. , 2020, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[4]  J. Dai,et al.  Impact of Magnetic Field on Dose Distribution in MR-Guided Radiotherapy of Head and Neck Cancer , 2020, Frontiers in Oncology.

[5]  B. Erickson,et al.  The MOMENTUM Study: An International Registry for the Evidence-Based Introduction of MR-Guided Adaptive Therapy , 2020, Frontiers in Oncology.

[6]  M. Ruschin,et al.  Glioma consensus contouring recommendations from a MR-Linac International Consortium Research Group and evaluation of a CT-MRI and MRI-only workflow , 2020, Journal of Neuro-Oncology.

[7]  A. Sahgal,et al.  Measurement of Surface Dose in an MR-Linac with Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dosimeters for IMRT Beam Geometries. , 2020, Medical physics.

[8]  G. G. Sikkes,et al.  Target coverage and dose criteria based evaluation of the first clinical 1.5T MR-linac SBRT treatments of lymph node oligometastases compared with conventional CBCT-linac treatment. , 2020, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[9]  Steven D Chang,et al.  A Phase I/II Trial of 5-Fraction Stereotactic Radiosurgery with 5-mm Margins with Concurrent Temozolomide in Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma: Primary Outcomes. , 2020, Neuro-oncology.

[10]  L. Livi,et al.  Partial breast irradiation with the 1.5 T MR-Linac: First patient treatment and analysis of electron return and stream effects. , 2019, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[11]  A. Sahgal,et al.  Surface and near-surface dose measurements at beam entry and exit in a 1.5 T MR-Linac using optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters , 2019, Physics in medicine and biology.

[12]  J. Lagendijk,et al.  Spiraling contaminant electrons increase doses to surfaces outside the photon beam of an MRI-linac with a perpendicular magnetic field , 2018, Physics in medicine and biology.

[13]  L. Azario,et al.  Hybrid Tri-Co-60 MRI radiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer: An in silico evaluation , 2018, Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology.

[14]  Uwe Oelfke,et al.  Treating locally advanced lung cancer with a 1.5 T MR-Linac – Effects of the magnetic field and irradiation geometry on conventionally fractionated and isotoxic dose-escalated radiotherapy , 2017, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[15]  Arjun Sahgal,et al.  Dosimetric feasibility of the hybrid Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)-linac System (MRL) for brain metastases: The impact of the magnetic field. , 2017, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[16]  C. K. Spindeldreier,et al.  Effects of magnetic field orientation and strength on the treatment planning of nonsmall cell lung cancer , 2017, Medical physics.

[17]  A. Sahgal,et al.  Magnetic field dose effects on different radiation beam geometries for hypofractionated partial breast irradiation , 2017, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[18]  M. Ruschin,et al.  Dosimetric Impact of Using a Virtual Couch Shift for Online Correction of Setup Errors for Brain Patients on an Integrated High-Field Magnetic Resonance Imaging Linear Accelerator. , 2017, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[19]  D. Osoba,et al.  Short‐Course Radiation plus Temozolomide in Elderly Patients with Glioblastoma , 2017, The New England journal of medicine.

[20]  Arjun Sahgal,et al.  Experimental evaluation of a GPU‐based Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm in the Monaco treatment planning system , 2016, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[21]  A. Sahgal,et al.  Backscatter dose effects for high atomic number materials being irradiated in the presence of a magnetic field: A Monte Carlo study for the MRI linac. , 2016, Medical physics.

[22]  X. Li,et al.  Technical Note: Dose effects of 1.5 T transverse magnetic field on tissue interfaces in MRI-guided radiotherapy. , 2016, Medical physics.

[23]  Sami Hissoiny,et al.  Evaluation of a commercial MRI Linac based Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm with GEANT4. , 2016, Medical physics.

[24]  B W Raaymakers,et al.  Compensating for the impact of non-stationary spherical air cavities on IMRT dose delivery in transverse magnetic fields , 2015, Physics in medicine and biology.

[25]  A. Nichol,et al.  Coplanar versus noncoplanar intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment planning for fronto‐temporal high‐grade glioma† , 2012, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[26]  D. Moseley,et al.  Single Arc Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Complex Brain Gliomas: Is There an Advantage as Compared to Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy or by Adding a Partial Arc? , 2012, Technology in cancer research & treatment.

[27]  S. Ryu,et al.  Evaluation of volumetric modulated arc therapy for cranial radiosurgery using multiple noncoplanar arcs. , 2011, Medical physics.

[28]  Benoît Ozell,et al.  GPUMCD: A new GPU-oriented Monte Carlo dose calculation platform. , 2011, Medical physics.

[29]  Uulke A. van der Heide,et al.  Simultaneous multi-modality ROI delineation in clinical practice , 2009, Comput. Methods Programs Biomed..

[30]  J J W Lagendijk,et al.  Dose optimization for the MRI-accelerator: IMRT in the presence of a magnetic field , 2007, Physics in medicine and biology.

[31]  S. Pocock,et al.  The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. , 2007, Preventive medicine.

[32]  S. Pocock,et al.  The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies , 2007, The Lancet.

[33]  B W Raaymakers,et al.  Integrating a MRI scanner with a 6 MV radiotherapy accelerator: impact of the surface orientation on the entrance and exit dose due to the transverse magnetic field , 2007, Physics in medicine and biology.

[34]  B W Raaymakers,et al.  Integrating a MRI scanner with a 6 MV radiotherapy accelerator: dose increase at tissue–air interfaces in a lateral magnetic field due to returning electrons , 2005, Physics in medicine and biology.

[35]  Martin J. van den Bent,et al.  Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[36]  A N T J Kotte,et al.  Integrating a MRI scanner with a 6 MV radiotherapy accelerator: dose deposition in a transverse magnetic field. , 2004, Physics in medicine and biology.