Plan Quality and Dose Escalation Using a MR-Linac in Stereotactic MR-Guided RT for Pancreatic Cancer
PO-1702
Abstract
Plan Quality and Dose Escalation Using a MR-Linac in Stereotactic MR-Guided RT for Pancreatic Cancer
Authors: Robert Hawranko1, Keith Neiderer2, Christopher Guy2, Ed Bump2, Amy Watson2, Lulin Yuan2, Tim Harris2, Emma Fields2, Elisabeth Weiss2, William Song2
1Virginia Commonwealth University, Medical Physics, Richmond, USA; 2Virginia Commonwealth University, Radiation Oncology, Richmond, USA
Show Affiliations
Hide Affiliations
Purpose or Objective
This study investigates plan quality generated by a 0.35T MR-Linac
treatment planning system (TPS) for 5-fraction SBRT of primary pancreatic
cancer (PCa). A cross comparison was performed against a conventional Linac
TPS. In addition, an isotoxic dose escalation (IDE) was investigated with the
MR-Linac TPS based on the stereotactic MR-guided adaptive radiation therapy
(SMART) trial constraints.
Material and Methods
20
PCa patients previously treated with a conventional Linac were retrospectively
re-planned for the MR-Linac. For each patient, three plans were generated:
using the original prescription dose and organ at risk (OAR) constraints (Plan
1), following SMART trial’s OAR constraints but with the original prescription
dose (Plan 2), and, starting with Plan 2, following an IDE strategy where dose
was escalated until any one of the SMART trial’s OAR constraints reached its
limit (Plan 3). The conventional Linac plans (25-33 Gy in 5 fractions)
accounted for respiratory motion by creating an ITV that encompassed the GTV’s
motion range, based on a 4DCT study before applying a PTV margin of 5 mm. Dose
calculations were performed on a derived average intensity projection image.
For the 3 plan types generated with the MR-Linac TPS, the GTV defined at the 0%
phase was expanded with a uniform PTV margin of 3 mm (i.e., no ITV was used),
as respiratory motion with the MR-Linac system is handled with real-time MR
guidance for target-tracking and beam-gating in addition to mild-inhalation
breath-hold. Conformity index, dose-volume indices, and R50 conformity metrics
were calculated for all plans.
Results
60
MR-Linac plans were created which met their respective dosimetric criteria
described above. For Plan 1, the MR-Linac TPS successfully achieved equivalent
or lower OAR doses while maintaining prescribed PTV coverage, for the 20 plans.
Maximum dose to the small bowel was reduced on average by 4.97 Gy (range:
1.11-10.58 Gy). For Plan 2, the MR-Linac TPS successfully met all SMART trial
OAR constraints while maintaining equivalent PTV coverage. For Plan 3, the
MR-Linac TPS was able to escalate the prescription dose from the original 25-33
Gy by, on average, 36 Gy (range: 15-70 Gy), and dose to the PTV has been
successfully escalated to at least 50 Gy for all 20 plans. These achievements
were possible in part due to the omission of the ITV afforded by the MR-Linac’s
real-time target tracking technology and sharper dose penumbra due to its
unique dual-focus MLC design.
Conclusion
The
MR-Linac TPS can generate plans that are equivalent to conventional Linac-based
plans for SBRT of PCa. Through analyzing Plan 2 and 3 strategies, and due to
the real-time target localization capabilities of the MR-Linac system,
increased OAR sparing and/or target dose escalation are possible. The MR-Linac
system has proven, in this study, to be an effective platform for safely
escalating doses where such is anticipated to translate to possible clinical
benefit for PCa patients.