Impact of 1.5 T Magnetic Field on Treatment Plan Quality in MR-Guided Radiotherapy: Typical Phantom Test Cases

被引:0
作者
Yan, Lingling [1 ]
Xu, Yingjie [1 ]
Dai, Jianrong [1 ]
机构
[1] Chinese Acad Med Sci & Peking Union Med Coll, Canc Hosp, Natl Canc Ctr, Natl Clin Res Ctr Canc,,Dept Radiat Oncol, Beijing 100021, Peoples R China
关键词
MR-guided radiotherapy; 1.5 T magnetic field; typical phantom test case; treatment plan quality; plan-quality metric; monitor unit; gamma passing rate; RADIATION-THERAPY; DOSE CALCULATIONS; IMRT; ACCELERATOR; INDEX; CONFORMITY; SCANNER; SYSTEM;
D O I
10.1177/15330338241272038
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Purpose This study aims to investigate the influence of the magnetic field on treatment plan quality using typical phantom test cases, which encompass a circle target test case, AAPM TG119 test cases (prostate, head-and-neck, C-shape, multi-target test cases), and a lung test case.Materials and Methods For the typical phantom test cases, two plans were formulated. The first plan underwent optimization in the presence of a 1.5 Tesla magnetic field (1.5 T plan). The second plan was re-optimized without a magnetic field (0 T plan), utilizing the same optimization conditions as the first plan. The two plans were compared based on various parameters, including conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), fit index (FI) and dose coverage of the planning target volume (PTV), dose delivered to organs at risk (OARs) and normal tissue (NT), monitor unit (MU). A plan-quality metric (PQM) scoring procedure was employed. For the 1.5 T plans, dose verifications were performed using an MR-compatible ArcCHECK phantom.Results A smaller dose influence of the magnetic field was found for the circle target, prostate, head-and-neck, and C-shape test cases, compared with the multi-target and lung test cases. In the multi-target test case, the significant dose influence was on the inferior PTV, followed by the superior PTV. There was a relatively large dose influence on the PTV and OARs for lung test case. No statistically significant differences in PQM and MUs were observed. For the 1.5 T plans, gamma passing rates were all higher than 95% with criteria of 2 mm/3% and 2 mm/2%.Conclusion The presence of a 1.5 T magnetic field had a relatively large impact on dose parameters in the multi-target and lung test cases compared with other test cases. However, there were no significant influences on the plan-quality metric, MU and dose accuracy for all test cases.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 33 条
[1]   Evaluation of a commercial MRI Linac based Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm with GEANT4 [J].
Ahmad, Syed Bilal ;
Sarfehnia, Arman ;
Paudel, Moti Raj ;
Kim, Anthony ;
Hissoiny, Sami ;
Sahgal, Arjun ;
Keller, Brian .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2016, 43 (02) :894-907
[2]   IMRT treatment planning -: A comparative inter-system and intor-centre planning exercise of the ESTRO QUASIMODO group [J].
Bohsung, J ;
Gillis, S ;
Arrans, R ;
Bakai, A ;
De Wagter, C ;
Knöös, T ;
Mijnheer, BJ ;
Paiusco, M ;
Perrin, BA ;
Welleweerd, H ;
Williams, P .
RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2005, 76 (03) :354-361
[3]   Plan quality for high-risk prostate cancer treated with high field magnetic resonance imaging guided radiotherapy [J].
Christiansen, Rasmus Lubeck ;
Hansen, Christian Ronn ;
Dahlrot, Rikke Hedegaard ;
Bertelsen, Anders Smedegaard ;
Hansen, Olfred ;
Brink, Carsten ;
Bernchou, Uffe .
PHYSICS & IMAGING IN RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2018, 7 :1-8
[4]  
Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. Measurements, 2010, Report 83. Prescribing, recording, and reporting photon-beam intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)
[5]   Planning feasibility of extremely hypofractionated prostate radiotherapy on a 1.5 T magnetic resonance imaging guided linear accelerator [J].
den Hartogh, Mariska D. ;
de Boer, Hans C. J. ;
De Groot-van Breugel, Eline N. ;
van Zyp, Jochem R. N. van der Voort ;
Hes, Jochem ;
van der Heide, Uulke A. ;
Pos, Floris ;
Haustermans, Karin ;
Depuydt, Tom ;
Smeenk, Robert Jan ;
Kunze-Busch, Martina ;
Raaymakers, Bas W. ;
Kerkmeijer, Linda G. W. .
PHYSICS & IMAGING IN RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2019, 11 :16-20
[6]   Comparison of Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy Treatment Plans Between 1.5T MR-Linac and Conventional Linac [J].
Ding, Shouliang ;
Li, Yongbao ;
Liu, Hongdong ;
Li, Rui ;
Wang, Bin ;
Zhang, Jun ;
Chen, Yan ;
Huang, Xiaoyan .
TECHNOLOGY IN CANCER RESEARCH & TREATMENT, 2021, 20
[7]   Guidance document on delivery, treatment planning, and clinical implementation of IMRT: Report of the IMRT subcommittee of the AAPM radiation therapy committee [J].
Ezzell, GA ;
Galvin, JM ;
Low, D ;
Palta, JR ;
Rosen, I ;
Sharpe, MB ;
Xia, P ;
Xiao, Y ;
Xing, L ;
Yu, CX .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2003, 30 (08) :2089-2115
[8]   IMRT commissioning: Multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119 [J].
Ezzell, Gary A. ;
Burmeister, Jay W. ;
Dogan, Nesrin ;
LoSasso, Thomas J. ;
Mechalakos, James G. ;
Mihailidis, Dimitris ;
Molineu, Andrea ;
Palta, Jatinder R. ;
Ramsey, Chester R. ;
Salter, Bill J. ;
Shi, Jie ;
Xia, Ping ;
Yue, Ning J. ;
Xiao, Ying .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2009, 36 (11) :5359-5373
[9]   Dosimetric evaluation of IMRT plan for homogenous and inhomogeneous medium using AAPM TG-119 protocol [J].
Fatimah, L. A. N. ;
Wibowo, W. E. ;
Pawiro, S. A. .
10TH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR ON MEDICAL PHYSICS & 1ST AMDI INTERNATIONAL ONCOLOGY SYMPOSIUM, 2017, 851
[10]   Conformity index:: A review [J].
Feuvret, L ;
Noël, G ;
Mazeron, JJ ;
Bey, P .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2006, 64 (02) :333-342