Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment (Sep 2022)

Comparison of Prospectively Generated Glioma Treatment Plans Clinically Delivered on Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)-Linear Accelerator (MR-Linac) Versus Conventional Linac: Predicted and Measured Skin Dose

  • Michael H. Wang MD,
  • Anthony Kim PhD,
  • Mark Ruschin PhD,
  • Hendrick Tan MD,
  • Hany Soliman MD,
  • Sten Myrehaug MD,
  • Jay Detsky MD, PhD,
  • Zain Husain MD,
  • Eshetu G. Atenafu MSc,
  • Brian Keller PhD,
  • Arjun Sahgal MD,
  • Chia-Lin Tseng MD

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/15330338221124695
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 21

Abstract

Read online

Introduction: Magnetic resonance imaging-linear accelerator radiotherapy is an innovative technology that requires special consideration for secondary electron interactions within the magnetic field, which can alter dose deposition at air–tissue interfaces. As part of ongoing quality assurance and quality improvement of new radiotherapy technologies, the purpose of this study was to evaluate skin dose modelled from the treatment planning systems of a magnetic resonance imaging-linear accelerator and a conventional linear accelerator, and then correlate with in vivo measurements of delivered skin dose from each linear accelerator. Methods: In this prospective cohort study, 37 consecutive glioma patients had treatment planning completed and approved prior to radiotherapy initiation using commercial treatment planning systems: a Monte Carlo-based algorithm for magnetic resonance imaging-linear accelerator or a convolution-based algorithm for conventional linear accelerator. In vivo skin dose was measured using an optically stimulated luminescent dosimeter. Results: Monte Carlo-based magnetic resonance imaging-linear accelerator plans and convolution-based conventional linear accelerator plans had similar dosimetric parameters for target volumes and organs-at-risk. However, magnetic resonance imaging-linear accelerator plans had 1.52 Gy higher mean dose to air cavities ( P < .0001) and 1.10 Gy higher mean dose to skin ( P < .0001). In vivo skin dose was 14.5% greater for magnetic resonance imaging-linear accelerator treatments ( P = .0027), and was more accurately predicted by Monte Carlo-based calculation ( ρ = 0.95, P < .0001) versus convolution-based ( ρ = 0.80, P = .0096). Conclusion: This is the first prospective dosimetric comparison of glioma patients clinically treated on both magnetic resonance imaging-linear accelerator and conventional linear accelerator. Our findings suggest that skin doses were significantly greater with magnetic resonance imaging-linear accelerator plans but correlated better with in vivo measurements of actual skin dose from delivered treatments. Future magnetic resonance imaging-linear accelerator planning processes are being designed to account for skin dosimetry and treatment delivery.