Search

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

Background and Purpose: To quantitatively compare the recurrence patterns of glioblastoma (isocitrate dehydrogenase-wild type) versus grade 4 isocitrate dehydrogenase-mutant astrocytoma (wild type isocitrate dehydrogenase and mutant isocitrate dehydrogenase, respectively) following primary chemoradiation. Materials and Methods: A retrospective matched cohort of 22 wild type isocitrate dehydrogenase and 22 mutant isocitrate dehydrogenase patients were matched by sex, extent of resection, and corpus callosum involvement. The recurrent gross tumor volume was compared to the original gross tumor volume and clinical target volume contours from radiotherapy planning. Failure patterns were quantified by the incidence and volume of the recurrent gross tumor volume outside the gross tumor volume and clinical target volume, and positional differences of the recurrent gross tumor volume centroid from the gross tumor volume and clinical target volume. Results: The gross tumor volume was smaller for wild type isocitrate dehydrogenase patients compared to the mutant isocitrate dehydrogenase cohort (mean ± SD: 46.5 ± 26.0 cm 3 vs 72.2 ± 45.4 cm 3 , P = .026). The recurrent gross tumor volume was 10.7 ± 26.9 cm 3 and 46.9 ± 55.0 cm 3 smaller than the gross tumor volume for the same groups ( P = .018). The recurrent gross tumor volume extended outside the gross tumor volume in 22 (100%) and 15 (68%) ( P = .009) of wild type isocitrate dehydrogenase and mutant isocitrate dehydrogenase patients, respectively; however, the volume of recurrent gross tumor volume outside the gross tumor volume was not significantly different (12.4 ± 16.1 cm 3 vs 8.4 ± 14.2 cm 3 , P = .443). The recurrent gross tumor volume centroid was within 5.7 mm of the closest gross tumor volume edge for 21 (95%) and 22 (100%) of wild type isocitrate dehydrogenase and mutant isocitrate dehydrogenase patients, respectively. Conclusion: The recurrent gross tumor volume extended beyond the gross tumor volume less often in mutant isocitrate dehydrogenase patients possibly implying a differential response to chemoradiotherapy and suggesting isocitrate dehydrogenase status might be used to personalize radiotherapy. The results require validation in prospective randomized trials.