Feasibility of Therapist-Driven MR-Guided Adaptive Radiotherapy for Oligometastatic Disease: Geometric Accuracy and Dosimetric Impact.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q2 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Amanda Moreira, Winnie Li, Iymad R Mansour, Mame Faye, Ali Hosni, Aruz Mesci, Enrique Gutierrez-Valencia, Patricia Lindsay, Peter Chung, Jeff Winter
{"title":"Feasibility of Therapist-Driven MR-Guided Adaptive Radiotherapy for Oligometastatic Disease: Geometric Accuracy and Dosimetric Impact.","authors":"Amanda Moreira, Winnie Li, Iymad R Mansour, Mame Faye, Ali Hosni, Aruz Mesci, Enrique Gutierrez-Valencia, Patricia Lindsay, Peter Chung, Jeff Winter","doi":"10.1111/1754-9485.70016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>MRI-guided adaptive radiation therapy (ART) is the resource-intensive process of daily treatment plan modification. This study aims to demonstrate the feasibility of radiation therapist (RT)-led MRI-guided ART for oligometastatic disease (OMD) by comparing geometric accuracy and dosimetric differences between RT and radiation oncologist (RO) re-contouring.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Five RTs and five ROs retrospectively re-contoured gross target volumes (GTVs) and organs-at-risk (OARs) for eight OMD cases. RT and RO contours were compared against consensus RO Simultaneous Truth and Performance Level Estimation (RO-STAPLE) contours using the Dice similarity coefficient (DICE), mean distance to agreement (MDA), planning target volume (PTV) D95 and OAR D0.5cc using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Moreover, an RO qualitatively scored all contours using a 5-point Likert scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found very good geometric accuracy with average (±standard deviation) GTV DICE of 0.82 ± 0.06 for RTs and 0.85 ± 0.09 for ROs and MDA of 0.88 ± 0.03 mm for RT and 0.75 ± 0.05 mm for ROs relative to the RO-STAPLE. Qualitative GTV Likert scores were excellent, 4.8/5 for RTs and 4.7/5 for ROs. Mean percent difference in PTV D95 compared to RO-STAPLE was small but significantly higher for RTs (0.5% ± 1.5%) compared with ROs (-0.7% ± 1.9%, p < 0.05). Mean relative change in OAR D0.5cc results was small with -1% ± 6% for RTs and -1% ± 12% for ROs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Here we provide the first report of geometric and dosimetric contouring uncertainty for MR-guided online ART for OMD. Our results show that RT re-contouring maintains similar performance for eligible targets and OARs compared with RO contours, establishing the initial feasibility of an RT-led workflow.</p>","PeriodicalId":16218,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1754-9485.70016","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: MRI-guided adaptive radiation therapy (ART) is the resource-intensive process of daily treatment plan modification. This study aims to demonstrate the feasibility of radiation therapist (RT)-led MRI-guided ART for oligometastatic disease (OMD) by comparing geometric accuracy and dosimetric differences between RT and radiation oncologist (RO) re-contouring.

Methods: Five RTs and five ROs retrospectively re-contoured gross target volumes (GTVs) and organs-at-risk (OARs) for eight OMD cases. RT and RO contours were compared against consensus RO Simultaneous Truth and Performance Level Estimation (RO-STAPLE) contours using the Dice similarity coefficient (DICE), mean distance to agreement (MDA), planning target volume (PTV) D95 and OAR D0.5cc using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Moreover, an RO qualitatively scored all contours using a 5-point Likert scale.

Results: We found very good geometric accuracy with average (±standard deviation) GTV DICE of 0.82 ± 0.06 for RTs and 0.85 ± 0.09 for ROs and MDA of 0.88 ± 0.03 mm for RT and 0.75 ± 0.05 mm for ROs relative to the RO-STAPLE. Qualitative GTV Likert scores were excellent, 4.8/5 for RTs and 4.7/5 for ROs. Mean percent difference in PTV D95 compared to RO-STAPLE was small but significantly higher for RTs (0.5% ± 1.5%) compared with ROs (-0.7% ± 1.9%, p < 0.05). Mean relative change in OAR D0.5cc results was small with -1% ± 6% for RTs and -1% ± 12% for ROs.

Conclusions: Here we provide the first report of geometric and dosimetric contouring uncertainty for MR-guided online ART for OMD. Our results show that RT re-contouring maintains similar performance for eligible targets and OARs compared with RO contours, establishing the initial feasibility of an RT-led workflow.

治疗师驱动的磁共振引导的低转移性疾病适应性放疗的可行性:几何精度和剂量学影响。
简介:mri引导下的适应性放射治疗(ART)是一种资源密集型的日常治疗方案修改过程。本研究旨在通过比较放射治疗(RT)和放射肿瘤学家(RO)重新轮廓的几何精度和剂量学差异,证明放射治疗(RT)主导的mri引导ART治疗寡转移性疾病(OMD)的可行性。方法:回顾性重建8例OMD患者的总靶体积(gtv)和危险器官(OARs),共5例rt和5例ROs。使用Dice相似系数(Dice)、平均协议距离(MDA)、计划目标体积(PTV) D95和OAR D0.5cc,使用Wilcoxon符号秩检验将RT和RO轮廓与共识RO同时真相和性能水平估计(RO- staple)轮廓进行比较。此外,RO使用5点李克特量表对所有轮廓进行定性评分。结果:相对于RO-STAPLE,我们发现具有良好的几何精度,rrt的平均(±标准差)GTV DICE为0.82±0.06,ROs为0.85±0.09,rrt的MDA为0.88±0.03 mm, ROs为0.75±0.05 mm。定性GTV Likert评分非常好,RTs为4.8/5,ROs为4.7/5。与RO-STAPLE相比,PTV D95的平均百分比差异很小,但RTs(0.5%±1.5%)明显高于ROs(-0.7%±1.9%),p结论:在这里,我们首次报道了mri引导下在线ART治疗OMD的几何和剂量轮廓不确定性。我们的研究结果表明,与RO轮廓相比,RT重新轮廓在符合条件的目标和桨上保持了相似的性能,从而建立了RT主导工作流程的初步可行性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
133
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology (formerly Australasian Radiology) is the official journal of The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists, publishing articles of scientific excellence in radiology and radiation oncology. Manuscripts are judged on the basis of their contribution of original data and ideas or interpretation. All articles are peer reviewed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信