Cone beam computed tomography image guidance within a magnetic resonance imaging-only planning workflow

Laura M O'Connor; Alesha Quinn; Samuel Denley; Lucy Leigh; Jarad Martin; Jason A Dowling; Kate Skehan; Helen Warren-Forward; Peter B Greer

doi:10.1016/j.phro.2023.100472

Cone beam computed tomography image guidance within a magnetic resonance imaging-only planning workflow

Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2023 Jul 8:27:100472. doi: 10.1016/j.phro.2023.100472. eCollection 2023 Jul.

Authors

Laura M O'Connor^{1

2}, Alesha Quinn¹, Samuel Denley¹, Lucy Leigh³, Jarad Martin¹, Jason A Dowling⁴, Kate Skehan¹, Helen Warren-Forward², Peter B Greer^{1

5}

Affiliations

¹ Department of Radiation Oncology, Calvary Mater Hospital, Edith Street, Waratah, Newcastle, NSW 2298, Australia.
² School of Health Sciences, University of Newcastle, University Drive, Newcastle, NSW 2308, Australia.
³ Hunter Medical Research Institute, Lot 1 Kookaburra Ct, New Lambton Heights, NSW 2305, Australia.
⁴ Australian E-Health Research Centre, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Bowen Bridge Rd, Herston, QLD 4029, Australia.
⁵ School of Information and Physical Sciences, University of Newcastle, University Drive, Newcastle, NSW 2308, Australia.

Abstract

Background and purpose: Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)-only planning workflows offer many advantages but raises challenges regarding image guidance. The study aimed to assess the viability of MRI to Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) based image guidance for MRI-only planning treatment workflows.

Materials and methods: An MRI matching training package was developed. Ten radiation therapists, with a range of clinical image guidance experience and experience with MRI, completed the training package prior to matching assessment. The matching assessment was performed on four match regions: prostate gold seed, prostate soft tissue, rectum/anal canal and gynaecological. Each match region consisted of five patients, with three CBCTs per patient, resulting in fifteen CBCTs for each match region. The ten radiation therapists performed the CBCT image matching to CT and to MRI for all regions and recorded the match values.

Results: The median inter-observer variation for MRI-CBCT matching and CT-CBCT matching for all regions were within 2 mm and 1 degree. There was no statistically significant association in the inter-observer variation in mean match values and radiation therapist image guidance experience levels. There was no statistically significant association in inter-observer variation in mean match values for MRI experience levels for prostate soft tissue and gynaecological match regions, while there was a statistically significant difference for prostate gold seed and rectum match regions.

Conclusion: The results of this study support the concept that with focussed training, an MRI to CBCT image guidance approach can be successfully implemented in a clinical planning workflow.

Keywords: Cone Beam Computed Tomography; Image-guided radiation therapy; MRI guided radiation therapy; MRI-only radiotherapy planning; Magnetic resonance imaging; Radiotherapy.