Initial Feasibility and Clinical Implementation of Daily MR-guided Adaptive Head and Neck Cancer Radiotherapy on a 1.5T MR-Linac System: Prospective R-IDEAL 2a/2b Systematic Clinical Evaluation of Technical Innovation

1. Introduction

High-field magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided radiation therapy (RT) has become a clinical reality with the commercial implementation and health-system accreditation of a hybrid 1.5T/7MV MRI/linear accelerator (MR-linac) [1–3]. The enhanced soft tissue contrast of the MR-linac allows visualization of non-bony target volumes and organs at risk (OARs) during treatment setup, enabling daily on-line treatment plan reoptimization for adaptive radiotherapy (ART) [3–5]. First clinical experiences with the MR-linac have been previously reported for oligometastatic, pelvic, and breast tumors [6–9], but utilization of the device has since expanded to a number of other tumor sites, including head and neck cancer (HNC).

Rather than ad hoc technology development and implementation via unstructured, non-sequential processes, the MR-Linac Consortium [10] has developed the R-IDEAL conceptual framework of systematic technical and clinical reporting processes for clinical radiotherapy applications [11]. Furthermore, to our knowledge, there are no reports of high-field MR-guided daily ART for HNC on a hybrid MR-linac system. Thus, pursuant to this commitment, we sought to undertake an R-IDEAL Stage 2a (“technical optimization of the innovation for treatment delivery”)/2b (“proof of early clinical effectiveness and safety of the innovation”) study with the following aims:

1) Describe an adapt-to-position (ATP) workflow for daily ART using conventional fractionation and ensuring preservation of pre-therapy dose constraints for target volumes and OARs; 2) Demonstrate the capacity of the 1.5T MR-linac system to deliver safe and clinically acceptable ART plans for HNC; 3) Characterize performance based on treatment times, quality assurance (QA) results, setup corrections, cumulative doses, and dosimetric variability between adaptive plans.

2. Methods

2.1 MR-Linac Clinical Workflow for Head and Neck

The clinical workflow described in this paper was developed as a multi-institutional effort through the MR-Linac Consortium’s Head and Neck Tumor Site Group. Although initial implementation at a single site (MD Anderson Cancer Center; Houston, TX) is described, this workflow is based on guidelines iterated through the Tumor Site Group prior to large-scale implementation (Appendix A).

2.1.1 Pre-treatment Workflow

Patient Selection

HNC patients are deemed eligible for treatment on the 1.5T/7MV MR-linac (Unity; Elekta AB; Stockholm, Sweden) if the following criteria are met: Patients must have intact tumor or an MR-visible reference OAR (e.g. skull base) and planning target volume (PTV) length <20 cm in the super-inferior direction (due to field size constraints [12]). Patients with claustrophobia, contraindications to MRI (metal objects, pacemakers, etc.), and/or compromised airway are excluded. Because the MR-linac is located in the out-patient radiation treatment center at our institution, the patient must be ambulatory. If the patient is admitted to the in-patient facilities at any time during treatment, he or she must be treated with a back-up plan on a conventional linac at the in-patient center. The full Patient Evaluation Form and MRI Safety Screening Form are given in Appendices B and C.

Simulation Protocol

All patients receive both CT and MR simulations on the same day and with the same immobilization devices to ensure that the CT and MR images may be rigidly registered [13]. The CT simulation is used for planning for both the MR-linac treatment and the back-up plan on a conventional linac. A tabletop overlay is used on the CT scanner to reproduce the actual couch top in the MR-linac treatment room. Placement of the index bars along the couch establishes the location of patient immobilization aids and the actual tumor volume with respect to the isocenter on the MR-linac. The tabletop overlay is also equipped with a hoop-shaped device representing the maximum clearance of the MR-linac bore to ensure that the patient and all immobilization aids will be able to fit into the MR-linac. The patient is immobilized with a custom thermoplastic immobilization mask and cushion (Klarity Medical Products; Heath, OH) (Figure 1).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1:

The MR-linac simulation and on-line adaptive replanning workflow. a) Custom head & neck immobilization mask with the coil on the MR-linac; b) indexing bar on the CT simulation MR-linac table overlay; c) CT sim hoop device used to test clearance in MR-linac bore; d) planning CT with contours; e) reference treatment plan on planning CT; f) daily setup MRI from MR-linac (2-minute T2 protocol); g) rigid registration of planning CT and setup MRI; h) adaptive plan using ATP workflow; i) dose volume histogram (DVH) of reference plan; j) DVH comparison between reference and adaptive plans.

The MR simulation protocol includes two standard vendor-provided non-contrast T2-weighted 3D MRI sequences (2-minute and 6-minute scans; scan protocol parameters provided in Appendix D) and may include additional specialized sequences (diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), 2D balanced fast field echo (bFFE) in three orthogonal directions for motion estimation, etc.). The physician determines at the time of MR simulation whether the 2-minute T2-weighted scan is adequate for daily setup and plan reoptimization; if the tumor or reference OAR is not clearly visible, the 6-minute scan is used for daily imaging.

Treatment Planning and Pre-Treatment Preparation

The CT and T2-weighted MR simulation images are fused for contouring of the target volume(s) and OARs by the physician and dosimetrist, respectively. Treatment planning is done in Monaco (version 5.4; Elekta AB), which employs a Monte Carlo-based dose calculation engine. All MR-linac plans use step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). An initial reference plan is created by a dosimetrist based on the target prescription dose(s) and OAR constraints (Appendix E) provided in the physician’s planning directive. The optimized plan is reviewed by the physician and physicist. Upon approval, the treatment plan is exported to the radiotherapy treatment data management system (Mosaiq; Elekta AB), where a Plan of Care is created for the patient. The Plan of Care specifies the exact MRI exam card(s) to be loaded during each treatment session.

2.1.2 Online Clinical Workflow

The Unity on-line adaptive workflow has been previously described by Winkel et al. [3]. At our institution, a T2-weighted MRI is used for daily setup verification and plan adaptation for HNC patients. The 6-minute scan was used for the first three patients to be conservative, but the 2-minute scan was used for all subsequent patients because the target or reference anatomy could be adequately visualized. The daily setup image is then fused with the reference plan image.

Two on-line adaptive workflows are possible with the Unity system: adapt-to-position (ATP) and adapt-to-shape (ATS). ATP is a virtual isocenter shift of the reference plan based on rigid registration with either a dose recalculation or plan reoptimization. ATS involves deformable image registration to propagate contours onto the daily setup image followed by a full plan reoptimization on the current anatomy [3]. The ATP workflow was used for on-line plan adaptation for six patients, and a combination of on-line ATP and off-line ATS was used for four patients (maximum one ATS during treatment course) to account for soft tissue deformation.

The following acceptance criteria are used for on-line plan review and to determine when an ATS is required: After fusion of the setup and reference plan images, if the isocenter shift is <5 mm in all directions and planning constraints are satisfied, the ATP workflow can proceed. If all shifts are <5 mm but any one dosimetric criterion is not satisfied for three consecutive fractions, the physician must be consulted prior to treatment and an off-line ATS is considered. If any shift is >5 mm, the patient must be repositioned; if any shift is still >5 mm (most likely due to patient weight loss), the physician must approve the plan prior to treatment, and an off-line ATS will be performed.

On-line ATS is challenging for HNC due to the large number of structures used in plan optimization. To improve the efficiency of the on-line workflow, ATS was only performed off-line to create a new reference plan for use in the subsequent days’ on-line ATP. When an ATS is performed, a 6-minute T2-weighted MRI is acquired during the previous fraction as the reference image for the ATS plan because the 2-minute scan is not adequate for target delineation. In the current study, the goal of treatment plan reoptimization was to ensure the delivery of pre-therapy planned doses to target volumes and OARs, referred to as an ART_{ex_aequo}¹approach in the nomenclature defined by Heukelom and Fuller [14]. Thus, in any off-line ATS’s, the target structures were registered rigidly rather than deformably and were not modified in any capacity; only OAR contours were updated to reflect anatomical changes.

Four methods are available for plan recalculation/reoptimization: “original segments,” “adapt segments,” “optimize weights,” and “optimize weights and shapes” [3]. In our ATP workflow, we use “adapt segments” when the isocenter shift is <1 mm in all directions. Otherwise, we use “optimize weights” first then “optimize weights and shapes” if the plan does not satisfy dosimetric criteria. For ATS, we use “optimize weights and shapes.”

During on-line plan adaptation, motion monitoring with a bFFE sequence is turned on to ensure that the patient has not deviated from the original position. Once the adaptive plan is created, it must be approved by the physicist and physician. Next, a secondary monitor unit (MU) calculation is performed using RadCalc (LAP/LifeLine Software, Inc; Austin, TX) for beam-by-beam validation of the MUs in the adaptive plan. Upon final approval, the treatment is delivered. IMRT QA is performed after the treatment using a cylindrical diode array.

3. Results

3.3 Comparison of Reference Plan and Daily Adaptive Plans

The summed dose to the clinical target volume (CTV) was within [-0.61%, 1.78%] of the reference plan dose in all cases, with the summed dose falling below the reference plan dose in only 2/10 cases (Figure 2). For the contralateral carotid artery, ipsilateral parotid gland, contralateral parotid gland, contralateral cochlea, and brainstem, the summation plan dose was lower than the reference plan dose in all cases. The dose to the ipsilateral cochlea was higher in the summation plan for 3/7 cases, but all cases fell within a maximum dose deviation of 4.3%. Doses to the spinal cord exceeded those in the reference plans for cases 1 and 2 by 8.1% and 2.1%, respectively. However, the planning constraint for the spinal cord used in these two cases was D_max < 10 Gy rather than the 45 Gy dose constraint used in cases 3–10. The total summed doses were between 10 and 11 Gy in these two cases, and these small absolute deviations in dose resulted in higher percent deviations despite the doses falling far below the typical constraint of 45 Gy. Similarly, dose sparing of 5%–12% was seen for five OARs in case 4, which was the largest dose sparing benefit seen for any case. Case 4 only had four fractions delivered, so the percent differences are larger than measured in most other cases.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2:

Percent differences between the summation plan and reference plan doses for each plan quality metric specified in Appendix D. Positive values mean that the dose in the summation plan exceeded the dose in the reference plan. The number of treatments delivered on the MR-linac (n) for each case is provided in the legends. In cases where no dosimetric criterion was used for an OAR, that case was omitted from the legend of the graph. “Ipsilateral” and “contralateral” are abbreviated “ipsi” and “contra,” respectively.

All cases had at least two fractions where one or more planning constraint was not met in the adaptive plan (Table 3). However, in most cases where a constraint was violated in at least one fraction, that constraint was still met in the summation plan. For the ipsilateral parotid glands in cases 3, 6, and 9 and the contralateral parotid gland in case 3, the constraints were not met in the initial reference plan and therefore were violated at nearly every fraction and also in the summation plan. There were only two instances (spinal cord in case 1 and ipsilateral cochlea in case 9) where the constraint was met in the reference plan but not in the summation plan. As previously mentioned, the constraint used for the spinal cord in case 1 was D_max < 10 Gy rather than the typical 45 Gy, so this constraint was not heavily enforced during on-line plan adaptation.

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup
• Download powerpoint

Table 3:

Number of times a constraint was violated in an adaptive plan.

Case 9 was chosen as a representative case to illustrate the dosimetric differences between the expected cumulative dose (if the reference plan had been delivered daily) and the actual cumulative dose delivered to the OARs and CTV (Figure 3). Despite the fluctuations in dose between adaptive treatments, minimal deviation was observed between the delivered and expected doses from fraction to fraction (within [-122.7 cGy, 152.4 cGy] over all cumulative fractions). The largest deviation occurred for the ipsilateral cochlea, which had a total of 14 constraint violations out of 33 fractions, resulting in a total dose deviation of 141.8 cGy (4.3%) at the end of treatment. Overall, doses to all OARs were highly consistent between the reference plan and summation plan in all cases, despite constraint violations and variations in daily dose distributions due to on-line plan adaptation.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3:

The absolute difference between the cumulative delivered dose and the expected delivered dose if the reference plan had been delivered at each fraction for case 9 (treatment site: oral tongue). Positive values mean that the cumulative delivered dose exceeded the reference plan expected dose. An off-line ATS was performed between fractions 25 and 26. This case was chosen as a representative case because all fractions were delivered on the MR-linac.

4. Discussion

ART has begun to play an increasingly prominent role in the treatment of HNC for two primary reasons: 1) significant tumor shrinkage, weight loss, and large anatomical deformations of OARs are often observed for HNC patients during RT [16–18]; and 2) treatment-related side effects from conventional RT can be particularly debilitating for HNC and often persist for years after treatment [19,20]. Several studies have demonstrated clinically significant reductions in doses to the parotid glands [21–23], spinal cord [23,24], and swallowing-related structures [25,26] with one or more off-line plan adaptations over the course of radiotherapy. Because off-line adaptive re-planning is time- and resource-intensive, many studies have focused on identifying anatomical and dosimetric guidelines to determine when plan adaptation would be optimally effective [24,25,27]. However, the clinical introduction of the 1.5T MR-linac has made daily ART for HNC a feasible clinical reality.

In this study, we present our initial experience with daily MR-guided ART for HNC on a 1.5T MR-linac. We employed an ART_{ex_aequo} approach [14] intended to deliver prescription and OAR doses defined prior to therapy. Target volumes were not modified, and OAR contours were updated only when a new reference plan was created via an off-line ATS plan adaptation. We used this conservative approach for our first HNC case series on the MR-linac to test safety and feasibility and to iteratively improve our clinical workflow. However, following the present R-IDEAL stage 2a/2b systematic evaluation, we plan to transition to ART approaches intended to spare OAR doses and/or handle shrinking tumor volumes in the near future [28]. The technological innovations with the MR-linac platform, including enhanced visualization of soft tissue and the on-line ATP and ATS workflows, have the potential to overcome many of the time and resource limitations associated with OAR-sparing and target volume-modifying ART approaches.

Total treatment times ranged from 31-85 minutes, with 91% completed within 60 minutes. Most of the upper outliers were due to isocenter shifts being too large or the on-line adaptive plan not meeting acceptance criteria. In these cases, the patient was repositioned and may have been given a short break out of the mask. Although these treatment durations are longer than HNC treatments on conventional linacs, they are comparable to other specialized image-guided procedures in our clinic.

One common concern with on-line adaptive re-planning is that a plan must be delivered before patient-specific IMRT QA is performed, in significant contrast to conventional QA workflows. However, all adaptive treatment plans in this study passed IMRT QA (γ>90%), with 75% of plans scoring 99.4% or higher. These high pass rates may be attributed to the comprehensive series of safety checks that are implemented at various stages of the clinical workflow, including annual, monthly, and daily linac and MRI QA as well as the secondary MU check during on-line plan adaptation. This workflow enables any dosimetric issues to be caught long before the patient is treated and ensures that on-line adaptive treatments are safe for all patients.

The setup variability results indicate that immobilization in a custom thermoplastic head and neck mask resulted in highly reproducible patient positioning with setup errors consistent with values previously reported in the literature [29–31]. In both the ATP and ATS workflows of the Unity system, an adaptive plan cannot be created if the isocenter shift exceeds 5 cm in any one direction because the table can only be moved longitudinally along the y (superior/inferior) axis. All isocenter shifts fell far below this threshold, with maximum shifts of 0.80, 1.97, and 0.73 cm in the x, y, and z directions over all 253 adaptive plans. Although shifts greater than 1 cm seem quite large with a mask, this occurred only four times and only in the y direction, which can be attributed to errors in positioning the mask along the index bar. In these cases, a decision was made not to reposition the patient because an acceptable ATP plan could still be generated. However, while on-line plan reoptimization directly accounts for inter-fraction positional variations, minimizing these variations can help the optimization algorithms achieve “better plans” that meet all dosimetric constraints.

Differences between the reference plan doses and summed doses were minimal, with the largest percent deviations occurring when the absolute doses were small (as in the case of the spinal cord D_max < 10 Gy constraint or when only 4 fractions were delivered). It is important to note that the ATP workflow was used for the majority of fractions, with only a single ATS fraction for cases 6, 8, 9 and 10. There was no modification of the CTV or intentional dosimetric sparing to any OARs for these cases. Any dosimetric sparing to the OARs is likely caused by small changes in the locations of “hot spots” in the dose distribution within each OAR, which is a result of both daily plan adaptation and the inherent randomness of the Monte Carlo dose calculation. Instead of the “hot spot” being located in the same voxel at each fraction, the “hot spot” is smeared around a larger volume over all fractions, effectively reducing the maximum or mean cumulative dose to any OAR compared to the reference plan. Overall, the consistency between the reference and summation plan doses demonstrate that our conservative initial clinical implementation of the ATP workflow on the MR-linac for HNC is safe for patients and performs at least as well as the standard of care from a dosimetric perspective.

One drawback of this dosimetric analysis was that the adaptive plans were summed using rigid plan summation on the anatomy of the reference plan in the ATP workflow. This dose summation approach was necessary because there are currently no validated deformable dose accumulation tools for the Unity system. In the absence of such a tool and with only ten cases in this initial feasibility study, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the dose sparing benefit of this MR-guided ART_{ex_aequo} approach. However, the current standard of care in RT is to plan multi-fraction treatments based on the obviously erroneous assumption that the anatomy remains constant throughout all treatment fractions. Thus, all dose estimates in conventional RT are based on the simulation image, which is analogous to the reference plan anatomy in MR-guided daily adaptive RT. Because all doses were summed on the reference plan anatomy, we may conservatively conclude that the dosimetric variability between daily adaptive plans results in minimal variation from the reference plan over the course of RT.

Despite these limitations, this effort represents the first report of 1.5T MR-guided daily ART for HNC and the first prospective series of dosimetric analyses of HNC treatment on a hybrid MR-linac system. Consistent with R-IDEAL, in this planned “prospective small uninterrupted case series,” we have demonstrated “technical improvements, feasibility, and safety” [11] of 1.5T daily ART_{ex_aequo} treatment for HNC. The continued R-IDEAL programmatic integration of this data with extant efforts across the MR-Linac Consortium is designed to ensure that rather than ad hoc reportage, iterative technical developments on a new technology are reported systematically. Future prospective analyses combining HNC data from other MR-Linac Consortium sites using the same workflow are currently being planned. Furthermore, first technical studies have shown that MR imaging using the 1.5 T Unity system not only provides excellent anatomical image data [32] but also allows for robust and reproducible quantitative imaging techniques, such as DWI [33]. Consequently, functional MR data acquired sequentially during MR-guided RT needs to be investigated systematically in order to pave the way towards future biologically individualized RT of HNC. Next steps include an R-IDEAL Stage 2a evaluation of functional imaging integration and feasibility with DWI, and Stage 2a implementation using an ART_reduco [14] approach within the prospective Phase II randomized MR-ADAPTOR trial [28].

5. Conclusion

The aim of this article was to describe our institution’s clinical workflow for treating HNC on a 1.5T MR-linac and to demonstrate safety and feasibility through a prospective analysis of ten cases treated with an on-line ATP workflow. Treatment times remained under one hour in 91% of cases. All treatment plans passed IMRT QA, and patient immobilization in a custom head and neck mask resulted in highly reproducible patient setups. The daily adaptive plans were very consistent with the reference plans with minimal dosimetric differences. In summary, daily MR-guided adaptive RT for HNC is safe and clinically feasible with the MR-linac, although further studies with more advanced dose accumulation strategies are required to investigate the true dosimetric impact of this treatment approach.