Advertisement

Feasibility of MR-only radiation planning for hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy of schwannomas using non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy

  • Arivarasan Ilamurugu
  • Anu Radha Chandrasekaran
  • Anantharaman Ayyalusamy
  • Subramanian Shanmugam
  • Ramasubramanian Velayudham
  • Gautham Reddy KattaCharu
  • Shyama Prasanna Satpathy
MEDICAL PHYSICS
  • 18 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the dose calculation accuracy of plans done on a CT density-assigned MR image set for hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (HSRT) using volumetric modulated radiation therapy containing non-coplanar beams.

Methods

Eighteen patients diagnosed with schwannoma treated with HSRT were selected retrospectively. These patients underwent planning CT (pCT) for radiation therapy (RT) and contrast-enhanced three-dimensional fast-spoiled gradient-echo image (3D FSPGR) to assist tumor delineation. CTplan is plan done on pCT. The structures body, bone, and air are contoured exclusively on MR image and assigned Hounsfield units of 25, + 1000, and − 1000, respectively. This is termed as MRCT. After registration, original plans from pCT are pasted on the MRCT. Dose calculation is done in two ways: (1) with preset MU values (DDC) and (2) with optimization (OPT_DC). Conformity indices and Dmax and D0.5cc of brainstem, gamma agreement index and correlation coefficient are analyzed. ANOVA test is carried out to find the significance of difference between plans.

Results

The mean deviations of Dmax and D0.5cc of brainstem for CTplan versus DDC are 2.49% and 1.45% respectively. The mean deviations of Dmax and D0.5cc of brainstem for CTplan versus OPT_DC are − 1.56% and − 1.97%, respectively. Mean deviations of conformity index for DDC and OPT_DC are 0.84% and 0.89%, respectively. No significant difference was found with ANOVA test.

Conclusion

Results show that there is no difference between plans generated with actual CT data and MRCT data. Thus MR scans could be employed for radiation planning provided the verification image is available. This gives us confidence to reduce treatment margins where image registration process is avoided.

Keywords

MRI in radiation planning MRCT FSPGR MR image Hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy Volumetric modulated radiation therapy 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors contributed to this study declare that they have no conflict of interest with respect to the manuscript.

Ethical standards

Institutional scientific and ethics board has approved this study. This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

The informed consent has been waived off by the ethics board of the institute considering this as a retrospective study.

References

  1. 1.
    Apicella G, Paolini M, Deantonio L, Masini L, Krengli M (2016) Radiotherapy for vestibular schwannoma: review of recent literature results. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 21(4):399–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Murphy ES, Suh JH (2011) Radiotherapy for vestibular schwannomas: a critical review. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 79:985–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thomas C, Di Maio S, Ma R, Vollans E, Chu C, Math M, Clark B, Lee R, McKenzie M, Martin M, Toyota B (2007) Hearing preservation following fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for vestibular schwannomas: prognostic implications of cochlear dose. J Neurosurg 107(5):917–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mulder JJ, Kaanders JH, van Overbeeke JJ, Cremers CW (2012) Radiation therapy for vestibular schwannomas. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 20(5):367–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schmidt MA et al (2017) Stereotactic radiosurgery planning of vestibular schwannomas: is MRI at 3 Tesla geometrically accurate? Med Phys 44(2):375–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhang B, MacFadden D, Damyanovich AZ, Rieker M, Stainsby J, Bernstein M, Jaffray DA, Mikulis D, Ménard C (2010) Development of a geometrically accurate imaging protocol at 3 Tesla MRI for stereotactic radiosurgery treatment planning. Phys Med Biol 55(22):6601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lambert J, Greer PB, Menk F, Patterson J, Parker J, Dahl K, Gupta S, Capp A, Wratten C, Tang C, Kumar M (2011) MRI-guided prostate radiation therapy planning: investigation of dosimetric accuracy of MRI-based dose planning. Radiother Oncol 98(3):330–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen L, Price RA, Wang L, Li J, Qin L, McNeeley S, Ma CM, Freedman GM, Pollack A (2004) MRI-based treatment planning for radiotherapy: dosimetric verification for prostate IMRT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 60(2):636–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Beavis AW, Gibbs P, Dealey RA, Whitton VJ (1998) Radiotherapy treatment planning of brain tumours using MRI alone. Br J Radiol 71(845):544–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tyagi N, Fontenla S, Zelefsky M, Chong-Ton M, Ostergren K, Shah N, Warner L, Kadbi M, Mechalakos J, Hunt M (2017) Clinical workflow for MR-only simulation and planning in prostate. Radiat Oncol 12(1):119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schmidt MA, Payne GS (2015) Radiotherapy planning using MRI. Phys Med Biol 60(22):R323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wang H, Chandarana H, Block KT, Vahle T, Fenchel M, Das IJ (2017) Dosimetric evaluation of synthetic CT for magnetic resonance-only based radiotherapy planning of lung cancer. Radiat Oncol 12(1):108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Christiansen RL, Jensen HR, Brink C (2017) Magnetic resonance only workflow and validation of dose calculations for radiotherapy of prostate cancer. Acta Oncol 56(6):787–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Edmund JM, Nyholm T (2017) A review of substitute CT generation for MRI-only radiation therapy. Radiat Oncol 12(1):28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Johansson A, Karlsson M, Nyholm T (2011) CT substitute derived from MRI sequences with ultrashort echo time. Med Phys 38(5):2708–2714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chung H, Jin H, Palta J, Suh TS, Kim S (2006) Dose variations with varying calculation grid size in head and neck IMRT. Phys Med Biol 51(19):4841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    White GR, Wilson IJ (1992) Photon, electron, proton and neutron interaction data for body tissues. ICRU report 46Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Low DA (2010) Gamma dose distribution evaluation tool. J Phys Conf Ser 250(1):012071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Varatharaj C, Ravikumar M, Sathiyan S, Supe SS, Vivek TR, Manikandan A (2010) Dosimetric verification of brain and head and neck intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment using EDR2 films and 2D ion chamber array matrix. J Cancer Res Ther 6(2):179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jonsson JH, Karlsson MG, Karlsson M, Nyholm T (2010) Treatment planning using MRI data: an analysis of the dose calculation accuracy for different treatment regions. Radiat Oncol 5(1):62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Köhler M, Vaara T, Grootel MV, Hoogeveen R, Kemppainen R, Renisch S (2015) MR-only simulation for radiotherapy planning. Philips White Paper. Koninklijke Philips NV, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Italian Society of Medical Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arivarasan Ilamurugu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Anu Radha Chandrasekaran
    • 2
  • Anantharaman Ayyalusamy
    • 1
  • Subramanian Shanmugam
    • 1
  • Ramasubramanian Velayudham
    • 2
  • Gautham Reddy KattaCharu
    • 1
  • Shyama Prasanna Satpathy
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Radiation Oncology, Yashoda Cancer InstituteYashoda HospitalsHyderabadIndia
  2. 2.School of Advanced SciencesVIT UniversityVelloreIndia

Personalised recommendations