Search

This work evaluated the suitability of MR derived sequences for use in online adaptive RT workflows on a 1.5 Tesla (T) MR-Linear Accelerator (MR Linac).Non-patient volunteers were recruited to an ethics approved MR Linac imaging study. Participants attended 1-3 imaging sessions in which a combination of DIXON, 2D and 3D volumetric T1 and T2 weighted images were acquired axially, with volunteers positioned using immobilisation devices typical for radiotherapy to the anatomical region being scanned. Images from each session were appraised by three independent reviewers to determine optimal sequences over six anatomical regions: head and neck, female and male pelvis, thorax (lung), thorax (breast/chest wall) and abdomen. Site specific anatomical structures were graded by the perceived ability to accurately contour a typical organ at risk. Each structure was independently graded on a 4-point Likert scale as 'Very Clear', 'Clear', 'Unclear' or 'Not visible' by observers, consisting of radiographers (therapeutic and diagnostic) and clinicians.From July 2019 to September 2019, 18 non-patient volunteers underwent 24 imaging sessions in the following anatomical regions: head and neck (n=3), male pelvis (n=4), female pelvis (n=5), lung/oesophagus (n=5) abdomen (n=4) and chest wall/breast (n=3). T2 sequences were the most preferred for perceived ability to contour anatomy in both male and female pelvis. For all other sites T1 weighted DIXON sequences were most favourable.This study has determined the preferential sequence selection for organ visualisation, as a pre-requisite to our institution adopting MR-guided radiotherapy for a more diverse range of disease sites.

The effectiveness of abdominal compression for motion management in hepatobiliary-pancreatic (HPB) radiotherapy has not been systematically evaluated.A systematic review was carried out using PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases up to 1 July 2021. No date restrictions were applied. Additional searches were carried out using the University of Manchester digital library, Google Scholar and of retrieved papers' reference lists. Studies conducted evaluating respiratory motion utilising imaging with and without abdominal compression in the same patients available in English were included. Studies conducted in healthy volunteers or majority non-HPB sites, not providing descriptive motion statistics or patient characteristics before and after compression in the same patients or published without peer-review were excluded. A narrative synthesis was employed by tabulating retrieved studies and organising chronologically by abdominal compression device type to help identify patterns in the evidence.The inclusion criteria were met by 6 studies with a total of 152 patients. Designs were a mix of retrospective and prospective quantitative designs with chronological, non-randomised recruitment. Abdominal compression reduced craniocaudal respiratory motion in the majority of patients, although in four studies there were increases seen in at least one direction. The influence of patient comorbidities on effectiveness of compression, and/or comfort with compression was not evaluated in any study.Abdominal compression may not be appropriate for all patients, and benefit should be weighed with potential increase in motion or discomfort in patients with small initial motion (5 mm). Patient factors including male sex, and high body mass index (BMI) were found to impact the effectiveness of compression, however with limited evidence. High-quality studies are warranted to fully assess the clinical impact of abdominal compression on treatment outcomes and toxicity prospective in comparison to other motion management strategies.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Tumour hypoxia is prognostic in head and neck cancer (HNC), associated with poor loco-regional control, poor survival and treatment resistance. The advent of hybrid MRI - radiotherapy linear accelerator or 'MR Linac' systems - could permit imaging for treatment adaptation based on hypoxic status. We sought to develop oxygen-enhanced MRI (OE-MRI) in HNC and translate the technique onto an MR Linac system.MATERIALS AND METHODS: MRI sequences were developed in phantoms and 15 healthy participants. Next, 14 HNC patients (with 21 primary or local nodal tumours) were evaluated. Baseline tissue longitudinal relaxation time (T 1) was measured alongside the change in 1/T 1 (termed ΔR 1) between air and oxygen gas breathing phases. We compared results from 1.5 T diagnostic MR and MR Linac systems. RESULTS: Baseline T 1 had excellent repeatability in phantoms, healthy participants and patients on both systems. Cohort nasal concha oxygen-induced ΔR 1 significantly increased (pCONCLUSION: We demonstrate first-in-human translation of volumetric, dynamic OE-MRI onto an MR Linac system, yielding repeatable hypoxia biomarkers. Data were equivalent on the diagnostic MR and MR Linac systems. OE-MRI has potential to guide future clinical trials of biology guided adaptive radiotherapy.

Background and Purpose: The magnetic resonance linear accelerator system (MR Linac) is a novel piece of radiotherapy (RT) equipment allowing the routine application of daily MR-guided treatment adaptation. The hardware design required for such technical capabilities and the increased complexity of the treatment workflow entails a notable departure from cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based RT. Patient tolerability of treatment is paramount to RT practice where high compliance is required. Presented is a comparative analysis of how such modality specific characteristics may ultimately impact the patient experience of treatment. Materials and Methods: Forty patients undergoing RT for prostate cancer (PCa) on either the MR Linac (n = 20) or a CBCT-based linac (n = 20) were provided with a validated patient reported outcomes measures (PROM’s) questionnaire at fraction 1 and fraction 20. The 18-item questionnaire provided patient responses recorded using a 4-point Likert scale, 0 denoting a response of ‘Not at all’, 1 ‘Slightly’, 2 ‘Moderately’ and 3 signifying ‘Very’. The analysis provided insight into both comparisons between modalities at singular time points (fractions 1 and 20), as well as a temporal analysis within a single modality, denoting changing patient experience. Results: Patients generally found the MR Linac treatment couch more comfortable, however, found the increase in treatment duration harder to tolerate. Responses for all items remained stable between first and last fraction across both cohorts, indicating minimal temporal variation within a single modality. None of the responses were statistically significant at the 0·01 level. Conclusion: Whether radiotherapy for PCa is delivered on a CBCT linac or the MR Linac, there is little difference in patient experience with minimal experiential variation within a single modality.

Purpose This study compared MRI to CBCT for the identification and registration of lymph nodes (LN) in patients with locally advanced (LA)-NSCLC, to assess the suitability of targeting LNs in future MR-image guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) workflows. Method Radiotherapy radiographers carried out Visual Grading Analysis (VGA) assessment of image quality, LN registration and graded their confidence in registration for each of the 24 LNs on CBCT and two MR sequences, MR1 (T2w Turbo Spin Echo) and MR2 (T1w DIXON water only image). Results Pre-registration image quality assessment revealed MR1 and MR2 as significantly superior to CBCT in terms of image quality (p ≤ 0.01). No significant differences were noted in interobserver variability for LN registration between CBCT, MR1 and MR2. Observers were more confident in their MR registrations compared to their CBCT based LN registrations (p ≤ 0.02). Summary Interobserver setup correction variability was not found to be significantly different between CBCT and MR. Image quality and registration confidence were found to be superior for MRI sequences. This is a promising step towards MR-guided radiotherapy for the treatment of LA-NSCLC.

IntroductionThe integration of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging into radiotherapy through new technology, including the MR -linear accelerator (MRL), has allowed further advancements into image guided radiotherapy (IGRT). Better soft tissue visualisation has led to some unusual findings.Case and outcomesA patient with T1c N0 M0 prostate adenocarcinoma received 60Gy in 20# radiotherapy on the MRL. Radiotherapy planning (RTP) scans were completed on both CT and MR (using T2 and T1 weighted three-dimensional turbo spin echo sequences, reconstructed transaxially (TRA). The MR scans revealed atypical oedema in the right peripheral zone, visualised on T2-weighted (T2w) MR Images as an accumulation of high signal intensity fluid. Daily MRL treatment includes a (T2w 3D Tra) sequence with which oedematous changes could be monitored. The images demonstrated an increase in oedematous volume over fractions 1-10 causing the prostate contour variations from the initial planning scans. Despite the prostate volume variations PTV coverage was never breached and dose constraints were always met for both PTV and surrounding organs at risk (OAR's), excluding the need for oncologist input. A single Therapeutic Radiographer (RTT) experienced in MRL delivery, contoured the prostate and oedematous volumes on the radiotherapy plan (RTP) MR and all on-treatment MR images to assess change over the radiotherapy course. The initial volumes were 53.4 cm3 and 8.3 cm3 for the prostate plus oedema and oedema alone respectively. The most significant change was seen for both the prostate and oedema on fraction nine (68.0 cm3 and 10.1 cm3, respectively). Reductions were noted after this with final (fraction 20) volumes of 55.2 cm3 and 0.58 cm3 respectively.DiscussionThe ability to visualise prostatic oedema was new to the radiotherapy treatment team due to better soft tissue visualisation than standard radiotherapy. The results from contouring the prostate and oedema volumes confirmed radiographer observations and demonstrated how oedema impacted the overall prostate volume by quantifying the oedematous variations over time. The changes in oedema volume are presumed to be in response to radiotherapy.ConclusionFurther adaptive radiotherapy work-flow developments, utilising an "Adapt to Shape" model will allow real-time re-contouring of the prostate to ensure tumour control is not compromised. Further work investigating the frequency and impact of oedemotous changes to external beam prostate patients will help to inform practice.

Introduction Magnetic resonance–guided adaptive radiotherapy (MRgART) has the potential to improve treatment processes and outcomes for a variety of tumour sites; however, it requires significant clinical resources. Magnetic resonance linear accelerator (MR-linac) treatments require a daily multidisciplinary presence for delivery. To facilitate sustainable MRgART models, agreed protocols facilitating therapeutic radiographer (RTT)-led delivery must be developed to establish a service similar to conventional image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT). This work provides a clinical perspective on the implementation of a protocol-driven ‘clinician-lite’ MRgART workflow at one institution. Methods To identify knowledge, skills, and competence required at each step in the MRgART workflow, an interdisciplinary informal survey and needs assessment were undertaken to identify additional or enhanced skills required for MRgART, over and above those required for conventional cone-beam computed tomography–based IGRT. The MRgART pathway was critically evaluated by relevant professionals to encourage multidisciplinary input and discussion, allowing an iterative development of the RTT-led workflow. Starting with the simplest online adaptation strategy, consisting of a virtual couch shift and online replanning, clear guidelines were established for the delivery of radical prostate radiotherapy with a reduction in staff numbers present. Results The MRgART-specific skills identified included MRI safety and screening, MR image acquisition, MRI-based anatomy, multimodality image interpretation and registration, and treatment plan evaluation. These skills were developed in RTTs via tutorials, workshops, focussed self-directed reading, teaching of colleagues, and end-to-end workflow testing. After initial treatments and discussions, roles and responsibilities of the three professional groups (clinicians, RTTs, and physicists) have evolved to achieve a ‘clinician-lite’ workflow for simple radical prostate treatments. Discussion Through applying a definitive framework and establishing agreed threshold and action levels for action within anticipated treatment scenarios similar to those in cone-beam computed tomography–based IGRT, we have implemented a ‘clinician-lite’ workflow for simple adaptive treatments on the MR-linac. The responsibility for online plan evaluation and approval now rests with physicists and RTTs to streamline MRgART. Early evaluation of the framework after treatment of 10 patients has required minimal online clinician input (1.5% of 200 fractions delivered). Conclusion A ‘clinician-lite’ prostate treatment workflow has been successfully introduced on the MR-linac at our institution and will serve as a model for other tumour sites, using more complex adaptive strategies. Early indications are that this framework has the potential to improve patient throughput and efficiency. Further identification and validation of roles and responsibilities such as online contouring, and more interactive online planning, will facilitate RTTs to fully lead in the online workflow as adaptive radiotherapy becomes ever more complex.

The benefits of integrating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) into radiotherapy planning have long been extolled, first appearing in the literature as early as 1986. Most often described as a tool to be used when registered to a planning computed tomography to improve target and organ at risk delineation, the use of MRI for on-board image guidance and as a sole imaging modality throughout the entire radiotherapy pathway is quickly becoming a reality for appropriately selected patient populations in academic centres throughout the world. With the commercialization of these integrated magnetic resonance - radiotherapy delivery systems, an MRI-only workflow will prove beneficial, with MRI being used for treatment planning, localization, and on-treatment plan adaptation. Despite these technological advancements, recent surveys indicate uptake of MRI in radiotherapy as a routine practice has proven challenging. Reasons cited for this slow uptake were primarily related to health economics and/or accessibility. Furthermore, these surveys, like much of the academic literature, shy away from focusing on safe, sustainable staffing models enabled by comprehensive and appropriate education and training. In stark contrast to conebeam computed tomography guided therapy, magnetic resonance - radiotherapy systems are currently being operated by teams of physicians, radiographers, and physicists because of the diverse and complex tasks required to deliver treatment. The pace of innovation in RT remains high and unfortunately the window of opportunity to implement appropriate education continues to narrow. It is vital that we establish a framework to future-proof our profession. In the era of magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy, we have yet to address the question of how to devise a consensus on the requisite knowledge, skills, and competence for radiation therapists and therapy radiographers using and/or operating MRI that provides guidance, without becoming prohibitively costly or time consuming.

Introduction Thoracic CT is a useful tool in the early diagnosis of patients with COVID-19. Typical appearances include patchy ground glass shadowing. Thoracic radiotherapy uses daily cone beam CT imaging (CBCT) to check for changes in patient positioning and anatomy prior to treatment through a qualitative assessment of lung appearance by radiographers. Observation of changes related to COVID-19 infection during this process may facilitate earlier testing improving patient management and staff protection. Methods A tool was developed to create overview reports for all CBCTs for each patient throughout their treatment. Reports contain coronal maximum intensity projection (MIP's) of all CBCTs and plots of lung density over time. A single therapeutic radiographer undertook a blinded off-line audit that reviewed 150 patient datasets for tool optimisation in which medical notes were compared to image findings. This cohort included 75 patients treated during the pandemic and 75 patients treated between 2014 and 2017. The process was repeated retrospectively on a subset of the 285 thoracic radiotherapy patients treated between January–June 2020 to assess the efficiency of the tool and process. Results Three patients in the n = 150 optimisation cohort had confirmed COVID-19 infections during their radiotherapy. Two of these were detected by the reported image assessment process. The third case was not detected on CBCT due to minimal density changes in the visible part of the lungs. Within the retrospective cohort four patients had confirmed COVID-19 based on RT-PCR tests, three of which were retrospectively detected by the reported process. Conclusion The preliminary results indicate that the presence of COVID-19 can be detected on CBCT by therapeutic radiographers. Implications for practice This process has now been extended to clinical service with daily assessments of all thoracic CBCTs. Changes noted are referred for oncologist review.

This document gives guidance for multidisciplinary teams within institutions setting up and using an MRI-guided radiotherapy (RT) treatment planning service. It has been written by a multidisciplinary working group from the Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM). Guidance has come from the experience of the institutions represented in the IPEM working group, in consultation with other institutions, and where appropriate references are given for any relevant legislation, other guidance documentation and information in the literature. Guidance is only given for MRI acquired for external beam RT treatment planning in a CT-based workflow, i.e. when MRI is acquired and registered to CT with the purpose of aiding delineation of target or organ at risk volumes. MRI use for treatment response assessment, MRI-only RT and other RT treatment types such as brachytherapy and gamma radiosurgery are not considered within the scope of this document. The aim was to produce guidance that will be useful for institutions who are setting up and using a dedicated MR scanner for RT (referred to as an MR-sim) and those who will have limited time on an MR scanner potentially managed outside of the RT department, often by radiology. Although not specifically covered in this document, there is an increase in the use of hybrid MRI-linac systems worldwide and brief comments are included to highlight any crossover with the early implementation of this technology. In this document, advice is given on introducing a RT workload onto a non-RT-dedicated MR scanner, as well as planning for installation of an MR scanner dedicated for RT. Next, practical guidance is given on the following, in the context of RT planning: training and education for all staff working in and around an MR scanner; RT patient set-up on an MR scanner; MRI sequence optimisation for RT purposes; commissioning and quality assurance (QA) to be performed on an MR scanner; and MRI to CT registration, including commissioning and QA.

Introduction/Background Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is used in radiotherapy planning, and increasingly in on-treatment guidance. The potential for the MR environment to be hazardous, without stringent safe working practices, is real. Guidance suggests all workers in MRI undergo annual safety training. To facilitate a tangible MR safety program, an electronic learning module was created and evaluated. Methods An existing presentation, normally delivered face-to-face, was modified and questions added to test knowledge. The module was delivered and feedback collected, together with answers to the questions, over three phases to ensure deliverability, clarity, and robustness. These comprised an initial pilot phase for non-MR personnel, an evaluation phase for staff renewing annual MR safety training, and finally for new therapeutic radiographer graduates, a test-retest methodology. Results Seven participants took part in the initial pilot phase, followed by thirty-one in the evaluation phase. Participants included radiographers (therapeutic and diagnostic), play specialists, clinical oncologists and anaesthetists, physicists and nursing staff. Within the evaluation group, 74.2% achieved a score >80%. Incorrect responses were principally related to questions regarding expected levels of responsibility and working practices, rather than the physics of high magnetic field strengths. The test-retest phase (n = 5) followed. Mean scores prior to learning were 59%, improving to 79% following learning, with the weakest sections mirroring those highlighted within the evaluation phase. Discussion Transferring MR safety training into an electronic format has provided a standardised, tangible tool that provides evidence of compliance with recommended guidance. Conclusions This work illustrates the transition of MR safety learning for radiotherapy staff from passive presentation, to an interactive teaching methodology. The e-learning module has now been implemented within the department.

Purpose The purpose of our study was to provide a guide for identification and contouring of upper abdominal organs-at-risk (OARs) in the setting of online magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided radiation treatment planning and delivery. Methods and Materials After a needs assessment survey, it was determined that an upper abdominal MRI-based atlas of normal OARs would be of benefit to radiation oncologists and radiation therapists. An anonymized diagnostic 1.5T MRI from a patient with typical upper abdominal anatomy was used for atlas development. Two MRI sequences were selected for contouring, a T1-weighted gadoxetic acid contrast-enhanced MRI acquired in the hepatobiliary phase and axial fast imaging with balanced steady-state precession. Two additional clinical MRI sequences from commercial online MRI-guided radiation therapy systems were selected for contouring and were included in the final atlas. Contours from each data set were completed and reviewed by radiation oncologists, along with a radiologist who specializes in upper abdominal imaging, to generate a consensus upper abdominal MRI-based OAR atlas. Results A normal OAR atlas was developed, including recommendations for contouring. The atlas and contouring guidance are described, and high-resolution MRI images and contours are displayed. OARs, such as the bile duct and biliary tree, which may be better seen on MRI than on computed tomography, are highlighted. The full DICOM/DICOM-RT MRI images from both the diagnostic and clinical online MRI-guided radiation therapy systems data sets have been made freely available, for educational purposes, at econtour.org . Conclusions This MRI contouring atlas for upper abdominal OARs should provide a useful reference for contouring and education. Its routine use may help to improve uniformity in contouring in radiation oncology planning and OAR dose calculation. Full DICOM/DICOM-RT images are available online and provide a valuable educational resource for upper abdominal MRI-based radiation therapy planning and delivery.

Magnetic resonance guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) is a promising approach to improving clinical outcomes for patients treated with radiation therapy. The roles of image guidance, adaptive planning and magnetic resonance imaging in radiation therapy have been increasing over the last two decades. Technical advances have led to the feasible combination of magnetic resonance imaging and radiation therapy technologies, leading to improved soft tissue visualization, assessment of inter- and intra-fraction motion, motion management, online adaptive radiation therapy and the incorporation of functional information into treatment. MRgRT can potentially transform radiation oncology by improving tumour control and quality of life after radiation therapy and increasing convenience of treatment by shortening treatment courses for patients. Multiple groups have developed clinical implementations of MRgRT predominantly in the abdomen and pelvis, with patients having been treated since 2014. While studies of MRgRT have primarily been dosimetric so far, an increasing number of trials are underway examining the potential clinical benefits of MRgRT, with coordinated efforts to rigorously evaluate the benefits of the promising technology. This review discusses the current implementations, studies, potential benefits and challenges of MRgRT.

Background: In LAPC, additional benefit of CRT over chemotherapy is uncertain. Optimising local therapy for a subset that never develops distant disease may prolong survival. Nelfinavir is thought to enhance radiosensitivity through hypoxia reduction by increasing tumour blood flow. Methods: A non-randomised, single centre phase II study, in FDG-PET-selectedpatients withhistologically proven LAPC. CRT consisted of: nelfinavir 1250 mg bd (days -3 to 45); gemcitabine 300 mg/m2 & cisplatin 30 mg/m2 (days 2, 9, 23 & 30); concurrent radiotherapy: 59.4 Gy/33# to primary tumour, 50.4 Gy/28# to regional nodes. Adjuvant gemcitabine was given for 6 months. Primary endpoint: 1 year overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints included: toxicity, response rate, resectability, median progression free survival (PFS), OS and local PFS. 6 patients had sequential dynamic 18fluoromisonidazole PET (FMISO-PET) and perfusion CT (pCT) before and after 6-7 days of nelfinavir (given from day -8). Results: 23 patients entered between Feb 2010-July2014. The trial was stopped because of unavailability of nelfinavir in Europe. 3 patients did not complete treatment (1 each of PE, biliary sepsis, stroke). Common G3/4 toxicities: thrombocytopenia/leukopenia (both 35%), diarrhoea (17%), nausea/vomiting (17%), fatigue (13%). 1 yr and median OS: 76.7% (95% CI 52.8-89.6) and 17.4 months (95% CI 12.7-22.8) respectively. 1 yr PFS and Local PFS: 36.8% (16.5-57.5) and 52.9% (95% CI 25.2-74.4) respectively. Mean FDG SUVmax reduction was 39% (p < 0.001) and was ≥60% in 29% of patients. 2 patients became resectable. 4/6 patients had reduced FMISO retention and increased pCT derived blood flow (BF) post-nelfinavir. Mean change in FMISO-k3 (2 tissue compartmental model) -50.3% vs 6% and BF 20.1 vs -7.1% in responders vs non-responders. 8/13 demonstrated a reduction in pAKT in peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Conclusions: Nelfinavir with CRT is well tolerated with promising outcomes, as these patients were not pre-selected through induction chemotherapy. Modulation of hypoxia & BF by nelfinavir was demonstrated. A randomised phase II study, SCALOP2, opens in 2015. Clinical trial information: 2008-006302-42.

Introduction/Background: The benefits of integrating MRI into the radiotherapy pathway are well published, however there is little consensus in guidance on how to commission or implement its use. With a view to developing consensus guidelines for the use of MRI in external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) treatment planning in the UK, a survey was undertaken by an Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM) working-party to assess the current landscape of MRI use in EBRT in the UK. Methods: A multi-disciplinary working-party developed a survey to understand current practice using MRI for EBRT treatment planning; investigate how MRI is currently used and managed; and identify knowledge gaps. The survey was distributed electronically to radiotherapy service managers and physics leads in 71 UK radiotherapy (RT) departments (all NHS and private groups). Results: The survey response rate was 87% overall, with 89% of NHS and 75% of private centres responding. All responding centres include EBRT in some RT pathways: 94% using Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACs) images potentially acquired without any input from RT departments, and 69% had some form of MRI access for planning EBRT. Most centres reporting direct access use a radiology scanner within the same hospital in dedicated (26%) or non-dedicated (52%) RT scanning sessions. Only two centres reported having dedicated RT MRI scanners in the UK, lower than reported in other countries. Six percent of radiotherapy patients in England (data not publically available outside of England) have MRI as part of their treatment, which again is lower than reported elsewhere. Although a substantial number of centres acquire MRI scans for treatment planning purposes, most centres acquire less than five patient scans per month for each treatment site. Commissioning and quality assurance of both image registration and MRI scanners was found to be variable across the UK. In addition, staffing models and training given to different staff groups varied considerably across the UK, reflecting the current lack of national guidelines. Conclusion: The primary barriers reported to MRI implementation in EBRT planning included costs (e.g., lack of a national tariff for planning MRI), lack of MRI access and/or capacity within hospitals. Despite these challenges, significant interest remains in increasing MRI-assisted EBRT planning over the next five years.

Objective: With increasing incorporation of MRI in radiotherapy, we investigate two MRI sequences for prostate delineation in radiographer-led image guidance. Methods: Five therapeutic radiographers contoured the prostate individually on CT, T2 weighted (T2W) and T2* weighted (T2*W) imaging for 10 patients. Contours were analysed with Monaco ADMIRE (research v. 2.0) to assess interobserver variability and accuracy by comparison with a gold standard clinician contour. Observers recorded time taken for contouring and scored image quality and confidence in contouring. Results: There is good agreement when comparing radiographer contours to the gold-standard for all three imaging types with Dice similarity co-efficient 0.91–0.94, Cohen’s κ 0.85–0.91, Hausdorff distance 4.6–7.6 mm and mean distance between contours 0.9–1.2 mm. In addition, there is good concordance between radiographers across all imaging modalities. Both T2W and T2*W MRI show reduced interobserver variability and improved accuracy compared to CT, this was statistically significant for T2*W imaging compared to CT across all four comparison metrics. Comparing MRI sequences reveals significantly reduced interobserver variability and significantly improved accuracy on T2*W compared to T2W MRI for DSC and Cohen’s κ. Both MRI sequences scored significantly higher compared to CT for image quality and confidence in contouring, particularly T2*W. This was also reflected in the shorter time for contouring, measuring 15.4, 9.6 and 9.8 min for CT, T2W and T2*W MRI respectively. Conclusion: Therapeutic radiographer prostate contours are more accurate, show less interobserver variability and are more confidently and quickly outlined on MRI compared to CT, particularly using T2*W MRI. Advances in knowledge: Our work is relevant for MRI sequence choice and development of the roles of the interprofessional team in the advancement of MRI-guided radiotherapy.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the consistency of therapy radiographers performing image registration using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)-CT, magnetic resonance (MR)-CT, and MR-MR image guidance for cervix cancer radiotherapy and to assess that MR-based image guidance is not inferior to CBCT standard practice. Methods: 10 patients receiving cervix radiation therapy underwent daily CBCT guidance and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging weekly during treatment. Offline registration of each MR image, and corresponding CBCT, to planning CT was performed by five radiographers. MR images were also registered to the earliest MR interobserver variation was assessed using modified Bland–Altman analysis with clinically acceptable 95% limits of agreement (LoA) defined as ±5.0 mm. Results: 30 CBCT-CT, 30 MR-CT and 20 MR–MR registrations were performed by each observer. Registration variations between CBCT-CT and MR-CT were minor and both strategies resulted in 95% LoA over the clinical threshold in the anteroposterior direction (CBCT-CT ±5.8 mm, MR-CT ±5.4 mm). MR–MR registrations achieved a significantly improved 95% LoA in the anteroposterior direction (±4.3 mm). All strategies demonstrated similar results in lateral and longitudinal directions. Conclusion: The magnitude of interobserver variations between CBCT-CT and MR-CT were similar, confirming that MR-CT radiotherapy workflows are comparable to CBCT-CT image-guided radiotherapy. Our results suggest MR–MR radiotherapy workflows may be a superior registration strategy. Advances in knowledge: This is the first publication quantifying interobserver registration of multimodality image registration strategies for cervix radical radiotherapy patients.

Endobiliary stents can be used as surrogates for pancreatic localization when using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) during external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT). This work reports on interfraction stent position changes during EBRT for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC).Six patients with endobiliary stents who underwent EBRT for LAPC were assessed. Measurements from the most superior aspect of the stent (sup stent) and the most inferior aspect of the stent (inf stent) to the most inferior, posterior aspect of the L1 vertebra central spinous process were determined from daily treatment CBCTs and compared with those determined from the planning computed tomography (CT) scan. Changes in stent-L1 measurements were interpreted as changes in relative stent position.Three patients showed mean interfraction stent position changes of ≥1 cm when treatment measurements were compared with planning measurements. The sup stent for patient A moved to the right (2.66 ± 2.77 cm) and inferiorly (3.0 ± 3.12 cm), and the inf stent moved to the right (1.92 ± 2.02 cm) inferiorly (3.23 ± 3.34 cm) and posteriorly (1.41 ± 1.43 cm). The inf stent for patient B moved superiorly (2.23 ± 0.49 cm) and posteriorly (1.72 ± 0.59 cm). The sup and inf stent for patient F moved inferiorly (0.98 ± 0.35 cm and 1.21 ± 0.38 cm, respectively). The remaining three patients C, D, and E showed interfraction position changes of1 cm.Endobiliary stent migration and deformation were observed in a small subset of patients. Further investigation is required before confirming their use as surrogates for LAPC target localization during image-guided EBRT.L’endoprothèse endobiliaire peut être utilisée substitut à la localisation pancréatique dans l’utilisation de la tomographie par ordinateur à faisceau conique (TOFC) en radiothérapie externe. La présente étude fait état du déplacement interfraction de l’endoprothèse durant la radiothérapie externe pour le cancer du pancréas localement avancé (CPLA).Six patients porteurs d’une endoprothèse endobiliaire ayant reçu des traitements de radiothérapie externe pour un CPLA ont été évalués. Les mesures pour l’aspect le plus supérieur de l’endoprothèse (sup stent) et son aspect le plus inférieur (inf stent) par rapport à l’aspect le plus supérieur et inférieur de l’apophyse épineuse centrale de la vertèbre L1 ont été déterminés à partir des traitements quotidiens de TOFC et comparés à celles établies lors de la tomographie de planification. Les changements dans la mesure endoprothèse-L1 ont été interprétés comme des changements dans la position relative de l’endoprothèse.Trois patients ont présenté un déplacement interfraction de l’endoprothèse de ≥1 cm lorsque les mesures de traitement ont été comparées aux mesures de planification. Pour le patient A, la mesure sup stent montre un déplacement vers la droite (2,66±2,77 cm) et le bas (3,0±3,12 cm), tandis que la mesure inf stent se déplaçait vers la droite (1,92±2,02 cm), le bas (3,23±3,34 cm) et l’arrière (1,41±1,43 cm). La mesure inf stent pour le patient B montre un déplacement vers le haut (2,23±0,49 cm) et l’arrière (1,72±0,59 cm). Les mesures sup et inf stent du patient F montrent un déplacement vers le bas (0,98±0,35 cm et 1,21±0,38 cm, respectivement). Chez les trois autres patients (C, D et E), le déplacement interfraction est inférieur à 1 cm.La migration et la déformation de l’endoprothèse endobiliaire ont été observées chez un petit sous-ensemble de patients. D’autres études seront nécessaires avant de pouvoir confirmer leur utilisation comme substitut à la localisation des cibles CPLA durant la radiothérapie externe guidée par l’image.