MRI-based IMPT planning for prostate cancer. (March 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Depauw, Nicolas; Keyriläinen, Jani; Suilamo, Sami; Warner, Lizette; Bzdusek, Karl; Olsen, Christine; Kooy, Hanne
• Is Part Of: Radiotherapy and oncology. Volume 144(2020)
• Page Start: 79
• Page End: 85
• Publication Date: 2020-03
• Subjects: Proton therapy -- PBS -- Prostate -- MRI -- Planning -- Robustness; Oncology -- Periodicals; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Tumors -- Periodicals; Medical Oncology -- Periodicals; Neoplasms -- radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Radiothérapie -- Périodiques; Cancérologie -- Périodiques; Tumeurs -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; 616.9940642
• DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2019.10.010
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0167-8140

Abstract

Highlights: A synthetic CT based on MRI can be used to generate IMPT plans for prostate cancer. These plans are robust against range and setup uncertainties. This approach is clinically applicable without any change to workflows. Based on MRI information which reduces the imaging dose delivered. Abstract: Purpose: Treatment planning for proton therapy requires the relative proton stopping power ratio (RSP) information of the patient for accurate dose calculations. RSP are conventionally obtained after mapping of the Hounsfield units (HU) from a calibrated patient computed tomography (CT). One or multiple CT are needed for a given treatment which represents additional, undesired dose to the patient. For prostate cancer, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans are the gold standard for segmentation while offering dose-less imaging. We here quantify the clinical applicability of converted MR images as a substitute for intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) treatment of the prostate. Methods: MRCAT (Magnetic Resonance for Calculating ATtenuation) is a Philips-developed technology which produces a synthetic CT image consisting of five HU from a specific set of MRI acquisitions. MRCAT and original planning CT data sets were obtained for ten patients. An IMPT plan was generated on the MRCAT for each patient. Plans were produced such that they fulfill the prostate protocol in use at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH). The plans were then recomputed onto the nominal planning CT for each patient. Robustness analyses (±5 mm setup shifts and ±3.5 % range uncertainties) were also performed. Results: Comparison of MRCAT plans and their recomputation onto the planning CT plan showed excellent agreement. Likewise, dose perturbations due to setup shifts and range uncertainties were well within clinical acceptance demonstrating the clinical viability of the approach. Conclusions: This work demonstrate the clinical acceptability of substituting MR converted RSP images instead of CT for IMPT planning of prostate cancer. This further translates into higher contouring accuracy along with lesser imaging dose.