State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 71067Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
35754Elekta (Shanghai) Instrument Ltd, China.
Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2021 Jan-Dec;20:1533033820985871. doi: 10.1177/1533033820985871.
In this study, we assess the dosimetric qualities and usability of planning for 1.5 T MR-Linac based intensity modulated radiotherapy (MRL-IMRT) for various clinical sites in comparison with IMRT plans using a conventional linac. In total of 30 patients with disease sites in the brain, esophagus, lung, rectum and vertebra were re-planned retrospectively for simulated MRL-IMRT using the Elekta Unity dedicated treatment planning system (TPS) Monaco (v5.40.01). Currently, the step-and-shoot (ss) is the only delivery technique for IMRT available on Unity. All patients were treated on an Elekta Versa HD with IMRT using the dynamic multileaf collimator (dMLC) technique, and the plans were designed using Monaco v5.11. For comparison, the same dMLC-IMRT plan was recalculated with the same machine and TPS but only changing the technique to step-and-shoot. The dosimetric qualities of the MRL-IMRT plans, to be evaluated by the Dose Volume Histograms (DVH) metrics, Homogeneity Index and Conformality Index, were compared with the clinical plans. The planning usability was measured by the optimization time and the number of Monitor Units (MUs). Comparing MRL-IMRT with conventional linac based plans, all created plans were clinically equivalent to current clinical practice. However, MRL-IMRT plans had higher dose to skin and larger low dose region of normal tissues. Furthermore, MRL-IMRT plans had significantly reduced optimization time by comparing conventional linac based plans. The number of MUs of MRL-IMRT was increased by 23% compared with ss-IMRT, and no difference from dMLC-IMRT. In conclusion, clinically acceptable plans can be achieved with 1.5 T MR-Linac system for multiple tumor sites. Given the differences in machine characteristics, some minor differences in plan quality were found between MR-Linac plans and current clinical practice and this should be considered in clinical practice.
在这项研究中,我们评估了 1.5T MR-Linac 基于强度调制放疗(MRL-IMRT)的剂量学质量和可用性,并将其与使用传统直线加速器的 IMRT 计划进行比较。共对 30 名患有脑部、食道、肺部、直肠和脊椎疾病的患者进行了回顾性模拟 MRL-IMRT 重新规划,使用 Elekta Unity 专用治疗计划系统(TPS)Monaco(v5.40.01)。目前,Unity 上唯一可用于 IMRT 的分步照射(ss)技术。所有患者均在 Elekta Versa HD 上接受了基于动态多叶准直器(dMLC)技术的 IMRT 治疗,使用 Monaco v5.11 设计了这些计划。为了进行比较,仅通过改变技术为分步照射,使用相同的机器和 TPS 重新计算了相同的 dMLC-IMRT 计划。通过剂量体积直方图(DVH)指标、均匀性指数和适形性指数评估 MRL-IMRT 计划的剂量学质量,并与临床计划进行比较。通过优化时间和监测器单位(MU)数量来衡量规划的可用性。与传统直线加速器相比,MRL-IMRT 计划与基于传统直线加速器的计划相比,所有生成的计划在临床上与当前的临床实践相当。然而,MRL-IMRT 计划的皮肤剂量更高,正常组织的低剂量区域更大。此外,与基于传统直线加速器的计划相比,MRL-IMRT 计划的优化时间显著减少。与 ss-IMRT 相比,MRL-IMRT 的 MU 数量增加了 23%,与 dMLC-IMRT 没有差异。总之,对于多个肿瘤部位,可以使用 1.5T MR-Linac 系统实现可接受的临床计划。鉴于机器特性的差异,MR-Linac 计划与当前临床实践之间存在一些计划质量上的细微差异,这在临床实践中应加以考虑。