Search

Purpose/Objective(s) Randomized trials have shown improved local control (LC) but no overall survival (OS) benefit with the addition of non-ablative radiation therapy (RT) dose compared to chemotherapy (CT) alone for pancreas cancer (PCa). Emerging data suggest that dose-escalated RT may improve LC and OS. A few studies suggest that stereotactic magnetic resonance-guided adaptive RT (SMART) can facilitate the safe delivery of ablative dose for inoperable PCa, although long-term outcomes are not well understood. Materials/Methods Inoperable PCa patients who received SMART were identified from the RSSearch Registry. Patients with Results A total of 148 PCa patients were treated on a 0.35T MR LINAC across 3 institutions between 2018-2020. Median age was 68 years (range 47-91), and 73.6% had ECOG 0-1 performance status. Patients had locally advanced (57.4%), borderline resectable (29.1%), or medically inoperable (13.5%) disease. Median CA19-9 at diagnosis was 202.1 U/mL (range 0.9-21,281). Induction CT was delivered to 89.2% for a median 3.9 mo (range 0.2-11.3); FOLFIRINOX (52.7%) or gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (23.4%) were common. Median prescribed RT dose was 50 Gy (range 40-50) in 5 fractions, mostly in consecutive days (96.6%) and in breath hold (95.3%). Median biologically effective dose (BED10) was 100 Gy10. All patients were treated with real-time tissue tracking and automated beam gating without fiducial markers. An elective target volume was rarely used (25%). Pancreaticoduodenectomy was performed in 23% at a median 46 days (range 34-304) after SMART. Median follow-up was 16 mo. from diagnosis for all patients (range, 4-39). Median, 1-year, and 2-year LC was not reached (NR), 94.6%, and 83%, respectively. Median, 1-year, and 2-year PFS was 18 mo., 72%, and 35.9%, respectively. Median, 1-year, and 2-year OS was 26 mo., 82%, and 52.7%, respectively. Acute and late grade 3 toxicity possibly related to SMART occurred in 4.1% and 12.8%, respectively. There was no reported grade 4+ toxicity. Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the largest reported analysis of 5-fraction SMART for inoperable PCa. These data add to the evidence that ablative radiation dose may improve long-term outcomes including OS. Prospective evaluation of this novel approach is warranted with attention directed at optimizing patient selection, understanding the clinical significance of cumulative dose delivered across all adapted fractions, and assessing treatment response after the delivery of ablative dose.

Introduction The purpose of this study was to investigate the systematic localization accuracy, treatment planning capability, and delivery accuracy of an integrated magnetic resonance imaging guided Linear Accelerator (MR-Linac) platform for stereotactic radiosurgery. Materials and methods The phantom for the end-to-end test comprises three different compartments: a rectangular MR/CT target phantom, a Winston–Lutz cube, and a rectangular MR/CT isocenter phantom. Hidden target tests were performed at gantry angles of 0, 90, 180, and 270 degrees to quantify the systematic accuracy. Five patient plans with a total of eleven lesions were used to evaluate the dosimetric accuracy. Single-isocenter IMRT treatment plans using 10–15 coplanar beams were generated to treat the multiple metastases. Results The end-to-end localization accuracy of the system was 1.0 ± 0.1 mm. The conformity index, homogeneity index and gradient index of the plans were 1.26 ± 0.22, 1.22 ± 0.10, and 5.38 ± 1.44, respectively. The average absolute point dose difference between measured and calculated dose was 1.64 ± 1.90%, and the mean percentage of points passing the 3%/1 mm gamma criteria was 96.87%. Conclusions Our experience demonstrates that excellent plan quality and delivery accuracy was achievable on the MR-Linac for treating multiple brain metastases with a single isocenter.

8502 Background: Metformin, a diabetes agent that inhibits mitochondria complex I, enhances radiotherapy and chemotherapy responses in pre-clinical models of NSCLC. NRG-LU001 examined whether metformin can improve outcomes of curative CRT in locally advanced (LA)-NSCLC. Methods: The primary endpoint of this trial was 1-year progression free survival (PFS). Unresected, non-diabetic, stage IIIA/B NSCLC patients were randomized (1:1) to either carboplatin-paclitaxel chemotherapy concurrent with chest RT (60Gy), followed by consolidation carboplatin-paclitaxel chemotherapy (Control Arm) or the same and oral metformin (2000mg daily) during cytotoxic therapy (Experimental Arm). PFS and overall survival (OS) were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method; time to local-regional progression (TTLRP), time to distant metastasis (TTDM) were estimated using the cumulative incidence method. Adverse events (AEs) were graded with CTCAE v.4.0. Results: Between Aug.2014 and Dec.2016, 170 patients were accrued. Analysis was planned at 102 PFS events (Feb. 2019). There was no significant difference in rates or grade of toxicity between the two arms. 1- and 2-year PFS was 60.4% (95% CI: 48.5, 70.4) and 40.1% (95% CI: 29.0, 51.0) in Control vs 51.3% (95% CI: 39.8, 61.7) and 34.5% (95% CI: 24.2, 45.1) in the Metformin arm (multivariable Cox proportional HR=1.20 (95% CI: 0.81, 1.78), p=0.36). OS at 2 years was 65.4% (95% CI: 53.5, 75.0) for Control vs 64.9% (95% CI: 53.1, 74.5) for the Metformin arm (HR=1.03 (95% CI: 0.64, 1.68)), while deaths due to disease were 90% vs 71%, respectively. No significant differences were found for TTLRP or TTDM. Conclusions: NRG-LU001 center reported outcomes show that oral daily metformin was well-tolerated in combination with CRT treatment for LA-NSCLC. However, metformin did not improve PFS and OS and did not alter the rates of local-regional failure or distant metastasis. Acknowledgements: TT and HS are Co-Principal Investigators. This project was supported by National Cancer Institute (NCI) grants: U10CA180868 (NRG Oncology Operations), U10CA180822 (NRG SDMC), UG1CA189867 (NCORP), U24CA180803 (IROC). Clinical trial information: NCT02186847.

© 2016 The Authors. Purpose The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Physics Core Curriculum Subcommittee (PCCSC) has updated the recommended physics curriculum for radiation oncology resident education to improve consistency in teaching, intensity, and subject matter. Methods and Materials The ASTRO PCCSC is composed of physicists and physicians involved in radiation oncology residency education. The PCCSC updated existing sections within the curriculum, created new sections, and attempted to provide additional clinical context to the curricular material through creation of practical clinical experiences. Finally, we reviewed the American Board of Radiology (ABR) blueprint of examination topics for correlation with this curriculum. Results The new curriculum represents 56 hours of resident physics didactic education, including a 4-hour initial orientation. The committee recommends completion of this curriculum at least twice to assure both timely presentation of material and re-emphasis after clinical experience. In addition, practical clinical physics and treatment planning modules were created as a supplement to the didactic training. Major changes to the curriculum include addition of Fundamental Physics, Stereotactic Radiosurgery/Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy, and Safety and Incidents sections, and elimination of the Radiopharmaceutical Physics and Dosimetry and Hyperthermia sections. Simulation and Treatment Verification and optional Research and Development in Radiation Oncology sections were also added. A feedback loop was established with the ABR to help assure that the physics component of the ABR radiation oncology initial certification examination remains consistent with this curriculum. Conclusions The ASTRO physics core curriculum for radiation oncology residents has been updated in an effort to identify the most important physics topics for preparing residents for careers in radiation oncology, to reflect changes in technology and practice since the publication of previous recommended curricula, and to provide practical training modules in clinical radiation oncology physics and treatment planning. The PCCSC is committed to keeping the curriculum current and consistent with the ABR examination blueprint.

The purpose of this study is to characterize the dosimetric properties and accuracy of a novel treatment platform (Edge radiosurgery system) for localizing and treating patients with frameless, image‐guided stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Initial measurements of various components of the system, such as a comprehensive assessment of the dosimetric properties of the flattening filter‐free (FFF) beams for both high definition (HD120) MLC and conical cone‐based treatment, positioning accuracy and beam attenuation of a six degree of freedom (6DoF) couch, treatment head leakage test, and integrated end‐to‐end accuracy tests, have been performed. The end‐to‐end test of the system was performed by CT imaging a phantom and registering hidden targets on the treatment couch to determine the localization accuracy of the optical surface monitoring system (OSMS), cone‐beam CT (CBCT), and MV imaging systems, as well as the radiation isocenter targeting accuracy. The deviations between the percent depth‐dose curves acquired on the new linac‐based system (Edge), and the previously published machine with FFF beams (TrueBeam) beyond Dmax were within 1.0% for both energies. The maximum deviation of output factors between the Edge and TrueBeam was 1.6%. The optimized dosimetric leaf gap values, which were fitted using Eclipse dose calculations and measurements based on representative spine radiosurgery plans, were 0.700 mm and 1.000 mm, respectively. For the conical cones, 6X FFF has sharper penumbra ranging from 1.2−1.8 mm (80%‐20%) and 1.9−3.8 mm (90%‐10%) relative to 10X FFF, which has 1.2−2.2 mm and 2.3−5.1 mm, respectively. The relative attenuation measurements of the couch for PA, PA (rails‐in), oblique, oblique (rails‐out), oblique (rails‐in) were: −2.0%, −2.5%, −15.6%, −2.5%, −5.0% for 6X FFF and −1.4%, −1.5%, −12.2%, −2.5%, −5.0% for 10X FFF, respectively, with a slight decrease in attenuation versus field size. The systematic deviation between the OSMS and CBCT was −0.4±0.2 mm, 0.1±0.3 mm, and 0.0±0.1 mm in the vertical, longitudinal, and lateral directions. The mean values and standard deviations of the average deviation and maximum deviation of the daily Winston‐Lutz tests over three months are 0.20±0.03 mm and 0.66±0.18 mm, respectively. Initial testing of this novel system demonstrates the technology to be highly accurate and suitable for frameless, linac‐based SRS and SBRT treatment. PACS number: 87.56.J‐

Purpose To describe and evaluate a method for generating synthetic computed tomography (synCT) images from magnetic resonance simulation (MR-SIM) data for accurate digitally reconstructed radiograph (DRR) generation and dose calculations in prostate cancer radiation therapy. Methods and Materials A retrospective evaluation was performed in 9 prostate cancer patients who had undergone MR-SIM in addition to CT simulation (CT-SIM). MR-SIM data were used to generate synCT images by using a novel, voxel-based weighted summation approach. A subset of patients was used for weight optimization, and the number of patients to use during optimization was determined. Hounsfield unit (HU) differences between CT-SIM and synCT images were analyzed via mean absolute error (MAE). Original, CT-based treatment plans were mapped onto synCTs. DRRs were generated, and agreement between CT and synCT-generated DRRs was evaluated via Dice similarity coefficient (DSC). Dose was recalculated, and dose-volume metrics and gamma analysis were used to evaluate resulting treatment plans. Results Full field-of-view synCT MAE across all patients was 74.3 ± 10.9 HU with differences from CTs of 2.0 ± 8.1 HU and 11.9 ± 46.7 HU for soft tissue structures (prostate, bladder, and rectum) and femoral bones, respectively. Calculated DSCs for anterior-posterior and lateral DRRs were 0.90 ± 0.04 and 0.92 ± 0.05, respectively. Differences in D99%, mean dose, and maximum dose to the clinical target volume from CT-SIM dose calculations were 0.75% ± 0.35%, 0.63% ± 0.34%, and 0.54% ± 0.33%, respectively, for synCT-generated plans. Gamma analysis (2%/2 mm dose difference/distance to agreement) revealed pass rates of 99.9% ± 0.1% (range, 99.7%-100%). Conclusion Generated synCTs enabled accurate DRR generation and dose computation for prostate MR-only simulation. Dose recalculated on synCTs agreed well with original planning distributions. Further validation using a larger patient cohort is warranted.

Purpose: To use end-to-end dosimetric measurements with Gafchromic film to evaluate the effects of focal spot size parameter for small-field dose calculations using AAA for SRS lesions. Methods: A total of 13 plans, corresponding to 7 patients previously treated with cranial SRS, were analyzed in this study (target volume range:[0.67cc,13.9cc]). The plans included DCA delivery (4 plans total) and VMAT delivery (9 plans total). All plans were mapped to a solid water phantom (15 cm thickness; isocenter and film plane at 7.5 depth). Dose calculation was performed with AAA v.11 (1.0mm grid size); three focal spot size settings were tested: 0mm, 0.5mm, and 1.5mm. For each plan, three calculated doses (corresponding to each focal spot size setting) were compared to measured film dose using quantitative methods [Gamma Analysis(1%,1mm,10% threshold criteria)] and qualitative methods (visual dose profile comparison). Film calibration and analysis were performed using in-house calibration methods and software package. Results: Gamma(1%,1mm) analysis passing rate results [mean(st.dev){%}] were as follows. For DCA plans: 98.74(0.54)-[0mm Focal Spot Size]; 98.24(1.26)-[0.5mm Focal Spot Size]; 95.42(2.29)-[1.5mm Focal Spot Size]. For VMAT plans: 98.75(0.54)-[0mm Focal Spot Size]; 98.89(0.73)-[0.5mm Focal Spot Size]; 97.43(1.30)-[1.5mm Focal Spot Size]. The majority of failing points (Gamma value>1.0) were found to be within the high dose region for all Focal Spot Size calculation models. Visual inspection of the dose profile, showed that the 1.5mm Focal Spot size calculation exhibited blurring in the high dose region (defined as >85% of the peak dose), resulting in a more gradual shoulder of the dose profile relative to measurements. Conclusion: The dose calculation accuracy of DCA and VMAT plans is paramount for SRS treatment planning. Our results indicate similar behavior of the AAA model with focal spot sizes of 0mm and 0.5mm, while 1.5mm focal spot size tends to result in blurring of the high dose region. Henry Ford Health System has research agreements with Varian and Philips.

To present a clinical procedure that readjusts catheters to its planned positions based on pretreatment computed tomography (CT) for patients undergoing high-dose-rate (HDR) prostate brachytherapy, and evaluate the magnitude and dosimetric impact of the adjustments.Patients received a pretreatment verification CT (vCT) before each fraction. The vCT dataset was imported to the treatment-planning system and fused to the planning CT (pCT) by rigid-body registration based on the implanted fiducials within the prostate. Catheter positions in the vCT were then compared with catheter positions in the pCT in a reconstructed plane through each catheter. Any catheter with difference in penetration larger than 3 mm was manually adjusted by a radiation oncologist before treatment. To evaluate treatment quality, the patient's plan was applied to the vCT off-line and dose delivered to prostate and normal structures were compared with their planned value.Forty-four fractions of 13 consecutive patients were treated using this method. Thirty-nine fractions had at least one catheter adjusted before treatment. A total of 651 catheters were assessed, and 194 catheters (30%) were adjusted by an average amount of 5.8 ± 1.9 mm. In eight fractions the prostate D90 would have decreased by more than 10% from the planned value (with a maximum of 32%) if the catheter displacements were not rectified. After the adjustment, the maximum deviation of D90 was 10.6%. The improvement in D90 is 24% per 1 cm of time-averaged adjustment.Interfraction catheter motion occurs without any particular pattern. Using pretreatment CTs and restoring each catheter to its planned position ensures that the delivered treatment closely matches the treatment plan and therefore enhances the overall quality of the HDR treatment. The procedure can be readily implemented in any clinical setting.

Purpose To report on a prospective clinical trial of the use of daily kilovoltage cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) to evaluate the interfraction and residual error motion of patients undergoing intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer. Methods and Materials Patients were treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy with an Elekta linear accelerator using a mounted CBCT scanner. CBCT was performed before every treatment, and translational (but not rotational) corrections were performed. At least once per week, a CBCT scan was obtained after intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Variations were measured in the medial–lateral, superoinferior, and anteroposterior dimensions, as well as in the rotation around these axes. Results A total of 28 consecutive patients (1,013 CBCT scans) were studied. The average interfraction shift was 1.4 ± 1.4, 1.7 ± 1.9, and 1.8 ± 2.1 mm in the medial–lateral, superoinferior, and anteroposterior dimensions, respectively. The corresponding average residual error shifts were 0.7 ± 0.8, 0.9 ± 0.9, and 0.9 ± 0.9 mm. These data indicate that in the absence of daily CBCT image-guided radiotherapy, a clinical target volume to planning target volume margin of 3.9, 4.1, and 4.9 mm is needed in the medial–lateral, superoinferior, and anteroposterior dimensions, respectively. With daily CBCT, corresponding margins of 1.6, 2.5, and 1.9 mm should be acceptable. Subgroup analyses showed that larynx cancers and/or intratreatment weight loss indicate a need for slightly larger clinical target volume to planning target volume margins. Conclusion The results of our study have shown that image-guided radiotherapy using CBCT for head-and-neck cancer is effective. These data suggest it allows a reduction in the clinical target volume to planning target volume margins by about 50%, which could facilitate future studies of dose escalation and/or improved toxicity reduction. Caution is particularly warranted for cases in which the targets are mobile ( e.g., the tongue).

Purpose: Investigate use of standardized non-coplanar arcs to improve plan quality in lung Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy(SBRT) VMAT planning. Methods: VMAT planning was performed for 9 patients previously treated with SBRT for peripheral lung tumors (tumor size:12.7cc to 32.5cc). For each patient, 7 VMAT plans (couch rotation values:0,5,10,15,20,25,and 30 deg) were generated; the coplanar plans were pushed to meet the RTOG0915 constraints and each non-coplanar plans utilized the same optimization constraints. The following plan dose metrics were used (taken from RTOG 0915): D-2cm: the maximum dose at 2 cm from the PTV, conformality index (CI), gradient index (GI), lung volume receiving 5 Gy (V5) and lung volume receiving 20 Gy (V20). The couch collision clearance was checked for each plan through a dry run using the couch position from the patient’s treatment. Results: Of the 9 cases, one coplanar plan failed to meet two protocol guidelines (both gradient index and D-2cm parameter), and an additional plan failed the D-2cm parameter. When introducing at least 5 degree couch rotation, all plans met the protocol guidelines. The largest feasible couch angle available was 15 to 20 degrees due to gantry collision issues. Non-coplanar plans resulted in the average (standard deviation) reduction of the following metrics: GI by 7.3% (3.7%); lung V20 by 11.1% (3.2%); D-2cm by 12.7% (3.9%). The CI was unchanged (−0.3%±0.6%), and lung V5 increased (3.8%±8.2%). Conclusion: The use of couch rotations as little as 5 degrees allows for plan quality that will meet RTOG0915 constraints while reducing D-2cm, GI, and lung V20. Using default couch rotations while planning SBRT cases will allow for more efficient planning with the stated goal of meeting RTOG0915 criteria for all clinical cases. Gantry clearance checks in the treatment room may be necessary to ensure safe treatments for larger couch rotation values.

Purpose: To establish a centralized database platform for radiotherapyquality assurance (QA). This can be an interactive platform where physicists can download digital benchmark cases from, perform radiotherapy planning and QA measurements with various planning and delivery systems, and upload the results. Data retrieval and analysis functions can then be developed for the quality assessment of the radiation plan and measurement in the context of prior data with similar planning, delivery and measurement technologies. Data mining of the system can in turn generate quantitative guidance for clinical trial QA requirements that have the optimum combination of stringent mandates and realistic accommodations. Methods: Built upon prior experience of Task Group(TG) 119 from IMRT workgroup of AAPM, and digital data phantoms from EORTC, these groups collaborate with clinical trial work group of AAPM and advanced technology consortium (ATC) to establish a virtual QA environment within National Biomedical Imaging Archive (NBIA). Digital phantoms from TG 119 and EORTC dosimetric evaluation with DICOM image, structures, plan and dose were uploaded to the virtual QA environment for the established community to download and perform evaluation of basic dosimetric parameters including, structure volumes, geometric location of structure center, designated points on dose volume histogram (DVH). Nine different treatment planning or related systems with various versions are included in these evaluations. Results: Volume variations among versions of these nine systems are 2.7%, 4.2%, 14.7%, 4.7% for prostate PTV, prostate, rectum and bladder respectively. DVH reading differences are 0.1%, 2.4% and 1.5% for prostate D95, rectum D30 and bladder D30. DVH reading differences for cube 10 are 1%, 86% and 100% for V0, V20 and V30 respectively. Conclusions: A virtual QA environment has been established within NBIA for radiation oncology inter‐system and inter‐institution QA. Initial testing in reading geometric and dosimetric parameters identified significant variations among systems.

Purpose: Needle applicators have shown displacement between fractions during HDR prostate brachytherapy, which will degrade plan quality. Typically, displacement is determined by analyzing catheters on a verification CT (vCT) or port films obtained before treatment relative to fiducials or bony landmarks. We present a procedure to verify applicator positions to achieve planned dose distributions by registering vCT directly to planning CTs (pCT). Method and Materials: Patients received a vCT prior to each fraction. This was imported to BrachyVision (Varian Medical Systems) and fused to the pCT by rigid‐body registration based on matching urethra and three prostate‐implanted gold fiducials. Then, applicators in the vCT were compared to applicators in the pCT in a reconstructed plane through each catheter and any difference larger than 3mm was manually adjusted by a radiation oncologist before treatment. To assess treatment quality, the prostate volume was copied from pCT to vCT and the planned dwell positions/time was applied to the vCT applicators. Results: Two consecutive patients were treated using our CT registration needle verification method. Both patients required applicator adjustments in the first two fractions. Patient one had an average 7mm cranial‐to‐caudal applicator displacement, corresponding to 23% and 12% fractional drop in V100prostate respectively; Patient two had displacement in both cranial‐to‐caudal and caudal‐to‐cranial directions up to 9mm, but due to minimum loading of affected applicators, no significant decrease in V100prostate was seen. Neither patient required applicator adjustment at the Srd/last fraction. Despite differences in applicator displacement, post‐adjustment, the achieved V100prostate at each fraction deviated from planned value by less than 4% for both patients. The distances between fiducials in vCTs were consistent with those in pCTs within 3mm, confirming that fiducials are appropriate landmarks for registration. Conclusion: We have successfully treated two patients using this method. This technique ensures the treatment quality closely matches plan quality.

Purpose: As IGRT strategies evolve from localization to adaptive planning, it becomes more important to acquire guidance images of higher quality. We utilized a CATPHAN to subject radiotherapyCBCTimages acquired under various conditions to the same rigorous tests and evaluation that diagnostic CTs undergo. This study reports on the evaluation of image qualities of diagnostic CT and radiotherapyCBCT and identifies the area of quality differences between the images.Method and Materials: RT‐CBCT scans were performed on Elekta XVI using pelvis scan settings on a CATPHAN Model 600. They were then compared to results from a GE Lightspeed16 multidetector CT scanner. The phantom contained modules allowing measurement of slice thickness, spatial resolution, low contrast resolution, Hounsfield Unit (HU) sensitivity and image uniformity. HU uniformity in the axial direction and geometric distortion were also measured. Results: For low contrast resolution tests, no targets could be clearly defined in the medium resolution reconstruction on RT‐CBCT. Only three spheres could be seen with the high resolution reconstruction (not used clinically) compared to six on diagnostic CTs. Calculated thicknesses for a 1.0 mm slice varied from 1.33 to 2.45 mm. The HU sensitometry test showed large variation from accepted HU values of the targets. These variations were not linear or affected by the reconstruction method. Spatial resolution for clinical settings (medium resolution) was constant at three lp/cm and improved to ten lp/cm with the high resolution acceptance testing reconstruction. This is comparable to diagnostic CT resolution. Axial direction HU uniformity varied in a stepwise fashion as the uniformity module moved away from the CBCT isocenter. No measurable geometric distortion was found as a function of distance from isocenter. Conclusion: A consolidated CBCT QA procedure is feasible for monitoring changes in image acquisition systems over time for image quality evaluation in adaptive therapy.

Background This study describes initial testing and evaluation of a vertical-field open Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanner for the purpose of simulation in radiation therapy for prostate cancer. We have evaluated the clinical workflow of using open MRI as a sole modality for simulation and planning. Relevant results related to MRI alignment (vs. CT) reference dataset with Cone-Beam CT (CBCT) for daily localization are presented. Methods Ten patients participated in an IRB approved study utilizing MRI along with CT simulation with the intent of evaluating the MRI-simulation process. Differences in prostate gland volume, seminal vesicles, and penile bulb were assessed with MRI and compared to CT. To evaluate dose calculation accuracy, bulk-density-assignments were mapped onto respective MRI datasets and treated IMRT plans were re-calculated. For image localization purposes, 400 CBCTs were re-evaluated with MRI as the reference dataset and daily shifts compared against CBCT-to-CT registration. Planning margins based on MRI/CBCT shifts were computed using the van Herk formalism. Results Significant organ contour differences were noted between MRI and CT. Prostate volumes were on average 39.7% (p = 0.002) larger on CT than MRI. No significant difference was found in seminal vesicle volumes (p = 0.454). Penile bulb volumes were 61.1% higher on CT, without statistical significance (p = 0.074). MRI-based dose calculations with assigned bulk densities produced agreement within 1% with heterogeneity corrected CT calculations. The differences in shift positions for the cohort between CBCT-to-CT registration and CBCT-to-MRI registration are −0.15 ± 0.25 cm (anterior-posterior), 0.05 ± 0.19 cm (superior-inferior), and −0.01 ± 0.14 cm (left-right). Conclusions This study confirms the potential of using an open-field MRI scanner as primary imaging modality for prostate cancer treatment planning simulation, dose calculations and daily image localization.