Radiation Oncology (Feb 2023)

Clinical implementation of magnetic resonance imaging simulation for radiation oncology planning: 5 year experience

  • Daniel Moore-Palhares,
  • Ling Ho,
  • Lin Lu,
  • Brige Chugh,
  • Danny Vesprini,
  • Irene Karam,
  • Hany Soliman,
  • Sean Symons,
  • Eric Leung,
  • Andrew Loblaw,
  • Sten Myrehaug,
  • Greg Stanisz,
  • Arjun Sahgal,
  • Gregory J. Czarnota

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-023-02209-4
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 18, no. 1
pp. 1 – 14

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Purpose Integrating magnetic resonance (MR) into radiotherapy planning has several advantages. This report details the clinical implementation of an MR simulation (MR-planning) program for external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in one of North America's largest radiotherapy programs. Methods and materials An MR radiotherapy planning program was developed and implemented at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center in 2016 with two dedicated wide-bore MR platforms (1.5 and 3.0 Tesla). Planning MR was sequentially implemented every 3 months for separate treatment sites, including the central nervous system (CNS), gynecologic (GYN), head and neck (HN), genitourinary (GU), gastrointestinal (GI), breast, and brachial plexus. Essential protocols and processes were detailed in this report, including clinical workflow, optimized MR-image acquisition protocols, MR-adapted patient setup, strategies to overcome risks and challenges, and an MR-planning quality assurance program. This study retrospectively reviewed simulation site data for all MR-planning sessions performed for EBRT over the past 5 years. Results From July 2016 to December 2021, 8798 MR-planning sessions were carried out, which corresponds to 25% of all computer tomography (CT) simulations (CT-planning) performed during the same period at our institution. There was a progressive rise from 80 MR-planning sessions in 2016 to 1126 in 2017, 1492 in 2018, 1824 in 2019, 2040 in 2020, and 2236 in 2021. As a result, the relative number of planning MR/CT increased from 3% of all planning sessions in 2016 to 36% in 2021. The most common site of MR-planning was CNS (49%), HN (13%), GYN (12%), GU (12%), and others (8%). Conclusion Detailed clinical processes and protocols of our MR-planning program were presented, which have been improved over more than 5 years of robust experience. Strategies to overcome risks and challenges in the implementation process are highlighted. Our work provides details that can be used by institutions interested in implementing an MR-planning program.

Keywords