Considerations for the clinical implementation of MRI-guided ART for H&N and lung cancers
Abigael Clough,
United Kingdom
OC-0420
Abstract
Considerations for the clinical implementation of MRI-guided ART for H&N and lung cancers
Authors: Abigael Clough1, Eleanor Pitt2, Claire Nelder1, Rebecca Benson1, Lisa McDaid1, Lee Whiteside1, Lucy Davies1, Jacqui Parker1, Toyosi Awofisoye1, Linnea Freear3, Joe Berresford3, Tom Marchant3, Andrew McPartlin4, Cathryn Crockett4, Ahmed Salem4, David Cobben5, Cynthia Eccles1
1The Christie , Radiotherapy , Manchester , United Kingdom; 2The Christie, Radiotherapy, Manchester, United Kingdom; 3The Christie , Medical Physics and Engineering , Manchester , United Kingdom; 4The Christie , Clinical Oncology , Manchester , United Kingdom; 5The Clatterbridge Cancer Centre , Clinical Oncology , Manchester , United Kingdom
Show Affiliations
Hide Affiliations
Purpose or Objective
Clinical commissioning of complex treatment
indications on the MR Linac (MRL) requires several considerations: selecting
the optimal image sequences for planning and treatment delivery, ensuring users
are competent in MR image registrations, adaptation strategy and identification
of triggers for adaptation are
identified. This work describes the steps taken to select MRI sequences and
validate inter-observer registration prior to the clinical implementation of
MR-guided adaptive radiotherapy for oropharyngeal (H&N) and lung cancers.
Material and Methods
Prior to the clinical implementation on
the MRL for H&N and lung cancer, patient volunteers were recruited to an
institutionally approved imaging study (PRIMER). Image quality was assessed
using visual guided assessments (VGAs) to determine the most suitable tissue
weighting for daily image registration. Three observers (1 oncologist and 2 radiographers)
independently scored visibility of the tumour and pre-determined organs at risk
(OARs) on vendor provided T1 and T2 weighted images for 10 H&N and 6 lung
patients. Nine radiographers completed
offline MRI to CT and MRI to MRI rigid registrations in Monaco v5.11.02 (Elekta
AB, Sweden) for 5 H&N and 4 lung patients, using
bony and soft tissue matching strategies. The resulting translations,
registration time and confidence scores were recorded using a 5 point Likert
scale. Descriptive statistics were calculated in Microsoft Excel.
Results
The VGA scores demonstrated tumour
visibility was unclear/not visible for all lung images, however, the lungs (44%
vs 33%) bronchial tree (67% vs 44%) and trachea (89% vs 78%) were more visible
on T2 than T1. In the R/L (-0.002 vs -0.15,) and A/P (0.05 vs 0.19)
directions T2-CT mean inter-observer variation were lower than those for T1-CT
for soft tissues matches. The mean time taken for offline T1-CT and T2-CT image
registration was 4 minutes. These times are longer than expected for online
registration which to date has averaged at 2:42 minutes. For H&N, T1 and T2 images have similar
tumour visualisation (58% vs 53%). T1 sequences demonstrated superior nodal
(61%vs 41%), optic nerve (100% vs 38%) and parotid (91% vs 44%) visualisation. Mean
inter-observer variation and SD for T1-CT and T2-CT registration methods were
greatest in the SI directions for both bony and soft tissue matches with the
greatest variation present for T2-CT. Radiographers had a 75% agreement on
whether to soft tissue or bony match on T1-CT image registration compared to
59% for T2-CT.The mean time was identical for the T1-CT and T2-CT at 5 minutes,
however online this has been significantly reduced to
an average of 2:16
minutes.
Conclusion
Using systematic evaluations the
interdisciplinary team was able to identify and agree on sequence selection for
H&N (T1) and lung (T2). This process will be used moving forward to future
MRL indications (e.g., pancreas). Work continues outside the vendor provided
workflow to further optimise imaging.