Cargando…
A Multi-center Prospective Study for Implementation of an MRI-Only Prostate Treatment Planning Workflow
Purpose: This project investigates the feasibility of implementation of MRI-only prostate planning in a prospective multi-center study. Method and Materials: A two-phase implementation model was utilized where centers performed retrospective analysis of MRI-only plans for five patients followed by p...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6727318/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31555587 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2019.00826 |
_version_ | 1783449223577993216 |
---|---|
author | Greer, Peter Martin, Jarad Sidhom, Mark Hunter, Perry Pichler, Peter Choi, Jae Hyuk Best, Leah Smart, Joanne Young, Tony Jameson, Michael Afinidad, Tess Wratten, Chris Denham, James Holloway, Lois Sridharan, Swetha Rai, Robba Liney, Gary Raniga, Parnesh Dowling, Jason |
author_facet | Greer, Peter Martin, Jarad Sidhom, Mark Hunter, Perry Pichler, Peter Choi, Jae Hyuk Best, Leah Smart, Joanne Young, Tony Jameson, Michael Afinidad, Tess Wratten, Chris Denham, James Holloway, Lois Sridharan, Swetha Rai, Robba Liney, Gary Raniga, Parnesh Dowling, Jason |
author_sort | Greer, Peter |
collection | PubMed |
description | Purpose: This project investigates the feasibility of implementation of MRI-only prostate planning in a prospective multi-center study. Method and Materials: A two-phase implementation model was utilized where centers performed retrospective analysis of MRI-only plans for five patients followed by prospective MRI-only planning for subsequent patients. Feasibility was assessed if at least 23/25 patients recruited to phase 2 received MRI-only treatment workflow. Whole-pelvic MRI scans (T2 weighted, isotropic 1.6 mm voxel 3D sequence) were converted to pseudo-CT using an established atlas-based method. Dose plans were generated using MRI contoured anatomy with pseudo-CT for dose calculation. A conventional CT scan was acquired subsequent to MRI-only plan approval for quality assurance purposes (QA-CT). 3D Gamma evaluation was performed between pseudo-CT calculated plan dose and recalculation on QA-CT. Criteria was 2%, 2 mm criteria with 20% low dose threshold. Gold fiducial marker positions for image guidance were compared between pseudo-CT and QA-CT scan prior to treatment. Results: All 25 patients recruited to phase 2 were treated using the MRI-only workflow. Isocenter dose differences between pseudo-CT and QA-CT were −0.04 ± 0.93% (mean ± SD). 3D Gamma dose comparison pass-rates were 99.7% ± 0.5% with mean gamma 0.22 ± 0.07. Results were similar for the two centers using two different scanners. All gamma comparisons exceeded the 90% pass-rate tolerance with a minimum gamma pass-rate of 98.0%. In all cases the gold fiducial markers were correctly identified on MRI and the distances of all seeds to centroid were within the tolerance of 1.0 mm of the distances on QA-CT (0.07 ± 0.41 mm), with a root-mean-square difference of 0.42 mm. Conclusion: The results support the hypothesis that an MRI-only prostate workflow can be implemented safely and accurately with appropriate quality assurance methods. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6727318 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-67273182019-09-25 A Multi-center Prospective Study for Implementation of an MRI-Only Prostate Treatment Planning Workflow Greer, Peter Martin, Jarad Sidhom, Mark Hunter, Perry Pichler, Peter Choi, Jae Hyuk Best, Leah Smart, Joanne Young, Tony Jameson, Michael Afinidad, Tess Wratten, Chris Denham, James Holloway, Lois Sridharan, Swetha Rai, Robba Liney, Gary Raniga, Parnesh Dowling, Jason Front Oncol Oncology Purpose: This project investigates the feasibility of implementation of MRI-only prostate planning in a prospective multi-center study. Method and Materials: A two-phase implementation model was utilized where centers performed retrospective analysis of MRI-only plans for five patients followed by prospective MRI-only planning for subsequent patients. Feasibility was assessed if at least 23/25 patients recruited to phase 2 received MRI-only treatment workflow. Whole-pelvic MRI scans (T2 weighted, isotropic 1.6 mm voxel 3D sequence) were converted to pseudo-CT using an established atlas-based method. Dose plans were generated using MRI contoured anatomy with pseudo-CT for dose calculation. A conventional CT scan was acquired subsequent to MRI-only plan approval for quality assurance purposes (QA-CT). 3D Gamma evaluation was performed between pseudo-CT calculated plan dose and recalculation on QA-CT. Criteria was 2%, 2 mm criteria with 20% low dose threshold. Gold fiducial marker positions for image guidance were compared between pseudo-CT and QA-CT scan prior to treatment. Results: All 25 patients recruited to phase 2 were treated using the MRI-only workflow. Isocenter dose differences between pseudo-CT and QA-CT were −0.04 ± 0.93% (mean ± SD). 3D Gamma dose comparison pass-rates were 99.7% ± 0.5% with mean gamma 0.22 ± 0.07. Results were similar for the two centers using two different scanners. All gamma comparisons exceeded the 90% pass-rate tolerance with a minimum gamma pass-rate of 98.0%. In all cases the gold fiducial markers were correctly identified on MRI and the distances of all seeds to centroid were within the tolerance of 1.0 mm of the distances on QA-CT (0.07 ± 0.41 mm), with a root-mean-square difference of 0.42 mm. Conclusion: The results support the hypothesis that an MRI-only prostate workflow can be implemented safely and accurately with appropriate quality assurance methods. Frontiers Media S.A. 2019-08-29 /pmc/articles/PMC6727318/ /pubmed/31555587 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2019.00826 Text en Copyright © 2019 Greer, Martin, Sidhom, Hunter, Pichler, Choi, Best, Smart, Young, Jameson, Afinidad, Wratten, Denham, Holloway, Sridharan, Rai, Liney, Raniga and Dowling. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Oncology Greer, Peter Martin, Jarad Sidhom, Mark Hunter, Perry Pichler, Peter Choi, Jae Hyuk Best, Leah Smart, Joanne Young, Tony Jameson, Michael Afinidad, Tess Wratten, Chris Denham, James Holloway, Lois Sridharan, Swetha Rai, Robba Liney, Gary Raniga, Parnesh Dowling, Jason A Multi-center Prospective Study for Implementation of an MRI-Only Prostate Treatment Planning Workflow |
title | A Multi-center Prospective Study for Implementation of an MRI-Only Prostate Treatment Planning Workflow |
title_full | A Multi-center Prospective Study for Implementation of an MRI-Only Prostate Treatment Planning Workflow |
title_fullStr | A Multi-center Prospective Study for Implementation of an MRI-Only Prostate Treatment Planning Workflow |
title_full_unstemmed | A Multi-center Prospective Study for Implementation of an MRI-Only Prostate Treatment Planning Workflow |
title_short | A Multi-center Prospective Study for Implementation of an MRI-Only Prostate Treatment Planning Workflow |
title_sort | multi-center prospective study for implementation of an mri-only prostate treatment planning workflow |
topic | Oncology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6727318/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31555587 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2019.00826 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT greerpeter amulticenterprospectivestudyforimplementationofanmrionlyprostatetreatmentplanningworkflow AT martinjarad amulticenterprospectivestudyforimplementationofanmrionlyprostatetreatmentplanningworkflow AT sidhommark amulticenterprospectivestudyforimplementationofanmrionlyprostatetreatmentplanningworkflow AT hunterperry amulticenterprospectivestudyforimplementationofanmrionlyprostatetreatmentplanningworkflow AT pichlerpeter amulticenterprospectivestudyforimplementationofanmrionlyprostatetreatmentplanningworkflow AT choijaehyuk amulticenterprospectivestudyforimplementationofanmrionlyprostatetreatmentplanningworkflow AT bestleah amulticenterprospectivestudyforimplementationofanmrionlyprostatetreatmentplanningworkflow AT smartjoanne amulticenterprospectivestudyforimplementationofanmrionlyprostatetreatmentplanningworkflow AT youngtony amulticenterprospectivestudyforimplementationofanmrionlyprostatetreatmentplanningworkflow AT jamesonmichael amulticenterprospectivestudyforimplementationofanmrionlyprostatetreatmentplanningworkflow AT afinidadtess amulticenterprospectivestudyforimplementationofanmrionlyprostatetreatmentplanningworkflow AT wrattenchris amulticenterprospectivestudyforimplementationofanmrionlyprostatetreatmentplanningworkflow AT denhamjames amulticenterprospectivestudyforimplementationofanmrionlyprostatetreatmentplanningworkflow AT hollowaylois amulticenterprospectivestudyforimplementationofanmrionlyprostatetreatmentplanningworkflow AT sridharanswetha amulticenterprospectivestudyforimplementationofanmrionlyprostatetreatmentplanningworkflow AT rairobba amulticenterprospectivestudyforimplementationofanmrionlyprostatetreatmentplanningworkflow AT lineygary amulticenterprospectivestudyforimplementationofanmrionlyprostatetreatmentplanningworkflow AT ranigaparnesh amulticenterprospectivestudyforimplementationofanmrionlyprostatetreatmentplanningworkflow AT dowlingjason amulticenterprospectivestudyforimplementationofanmrionlyprostatetreatmentplanningworkflow AT greerpeter multicenterprospectivestudyforimplementationofanmrionlyprostatetreatmentplanningworkflow AT martinjarad multicenterprospectivestudyforimplementationofanmrionlyprostatetreatmentplanningworkflow AT sidhommark multicenterprospectivestudyforimplementationofanmrionlyprostatetreatmentplanningworkflow AT hunterperry multicenterprospectivestudyforimplementationofanmrionlyprostatetreatmentplanningworkflow AT pichlerpeter multicenterprospectivestudyforimplementationofanmrionlyprostatetreatmentplanningworkflow AT choijaehyuk multicenterprospectivestudyforimplementationofanmrionlyprostatetreatmentplanningworkflow AT bestleah multicenterprospectivestudyforimplementationofanmrionlyprostatetreatmentplanningworkflow AT smartjoanne multicenterprospectivestudyforimplementationofanmrionlyprostatetreatmentplanningworkflow AT youngtony multicenterprospectivestudyforimplementationofanmrionlyprostatetreatmentplanningworkflow AT jamesonmichael multicenterprospectivestudyforimplementationofanmrionlyprostatetreatmentplanningworkflow AT afinidadtess multicenterprospectivestudyforimplementationofanmrionlyprostatetreatmentplanningworkflow AT wrattenchris multicenterprospectivestudyforimplementationofanmrionlyprostatetreatmentplanningworkflow AT denhamjames multicenterprospectivestudyforimplementationofanmrionlyprostatetreatmentplanningworkflow AT hollowaylois multicenterprospectivestudyforimplementationofanmrionlyprostatetreatmentplanningworkflow AT sridharanswetha multicenterprospectivestudyforimplementationofanmrionlyprostatetreatmentplanningworkflow AT rairobba multicenterprospectivestudyforimplementationofanmrionlyprostatetreatmentplanningworkflow AT lineygary multicenterprospectivestudyforimplementationofanmrionlyprostatetreatmentplanningworkflow AT ranigaparnesh multicenterprospectivestudyforimplementationofanmrionlyprostatetreatmentplanningworkflow AT dowlingjason multicenterprospectivestudyforimplementationofanmrionlyprostatetreatmentplanningworkflow |