Copenhagen, Denmark
Onsite/Online

ESTRO 2022

Session Item

Saturday
May 07
09:00 - 10:00
Poster Station 2
02: Palliation, mixed sites
Max Dahele, The Netherlands
1190
Poster Discussion
Clinical
Developing rapid response MRI-guided palliative radiotherapy for metastatic spinal cord compression
Rebecca Benson, United Kingdom
PD-0087

Abstract

Developing rapid response MRI-guided palliative radiotherapy for metastatic spinal cord compression
Authors:

Rebecca Benson1, Athanasios Sideris2, Lisa McDaid1, Robert Chuter3, Robin Portner4, Linnéa Freear3, Abigael Clough1, Claire Nelder1, Eleanor Pitt1, Mairead Daly1, Maria Vassiliou1, Agata Rembielak4, Peter Hoskin4, Ananya Choudhury4, Cynthia Eccles1

1The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Radiotherapy, Manchester, United Kingdom; 2The University of Manchester, Division of Cancer Sciences, Manchester, United Kingdom; 3The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Medical Physics and Engineering, Manchester, United Kingdom; 4The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Clinical Oncology, Manchester, United Kingdom

Show Affiliations
Purpose or Objective

Implementation of a rapid response metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC) pathway using diagnostic (dCT) imaging and adaptive MR Linac treatment has the potential to reduce waiting times, align healthcare processes, and improve the patient experience during a global pandemic. This work presents the preliminary feasibility testing of a rapid response, single appointment MSCC pathway on the Elekta Unity MR Linac (MRL) using dCT imaging, as the diagnostic MR field of view is too small.

Material and Methods

Retrospective radiotherapy plan data were collected from ten patients who had received urgent/emergency palliative spinal radiotherapy on conventional linear accelerators at our institution. The most recent dCT images prior to the treatment planning scans were imported from the picture archiving communication system (PACS) to the MRL treatment planning system (Monaco V5.40, Elekta). New treatment plans were then created on these dCT images to prepare for delivery on the MRL (figure 1). In order to facilitate this target contours were required and generated by the treatment planner with support from a clinical oncologist. Departmental policy for single dose radiotherapy was used in the creation of these plans (8Gy treated in a single post field). To test implementation on the MRL, MR scans were acquired and treatment delivered to a 3D abdominal phantom (CIRS) using MR-CT registration and the adapt to shape (ATS) workflow. ATS ensures that if anatomical changes have occurred since dCT the contours can be adapted on the day to reflect these changes, allowing for online plan adaptation

Results

Ten plans were created on imported dCT.  Treatment site ranged from upper thoracic spine to sacrum. Target volumes ranged from 156- 508 cm3, D95% ranged from 767-874cGy (figure 2). Acceptable coverage was achieved on all plans but proved more challenging on those with larger treatment volumes. Approved plans were exported to Mosaiq (V2.83, Elekta) to test delivery on a phantom on the MRL. 

Conclusion

For MSCC we were able to import and transfer data, produce acceptable treatment plans on dCT images and preliminary testing on the MRL. Attempted delivery of these plans highlighted technical issues that need to be overcome prior to clinical implementation. These included the lack of origin and landmarking information on dCT can make patient positioning challenging due to limitations of online shifts. Additionally, bulk density overrides are required for Hounsfield unit to electron density conversion as dCT images may come from different diagnostic CT scanners for which commissioning data is not available. Further work is on-going to confirm dosimetric accuracy and overcome positioning limitations related to plan delivery prior to clinical implementation.