Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:10:31.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

It is time to integrate MRI deformable registration into image-guided radiotherapy and margin analysis: using prostate cancer radiotherapy as a model?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 March 2013

Rex Cheung
Rex Cheung*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology, 275 S. Bryn Mawr Ave, K43, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, USA
*
Correspondence to: E-mail: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Type
Guest Editorial
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 5 - 7
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

THE NEED TO INTEGRATE MRI DEFORMABLE REGISTRATION INTO RADIATION TREATMENT PLANNING OF PROSTATE CANCER

Recent advances in mono-modalReference Wang, Dong and Lii1,Reference Wang, Dong and O’Daniel2 and multi-modalReference Cheung and Krishnan3 deformable registration have for the first time to allow accurate mapping of prostate cancer from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) onto treatment MRI or computed tomography (CT). This technology can also propagate the information from the treatment planning CT to daily CT used for image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT). Prostate cancer radiotherapy is used as a model because deformable registration is arguably most advanced in this field with the recent addition of multi-modal solution of using human a priori knowledge, i.e., prostate and prostate cancer contours.Reference Cheung and Krishnan3 It has been long advocated to improve the prostate cancer treatment outcome by increasing radiation dose;Reference Cheung, Tucker, Dong and Kuban4,Reference Cheung, Tucker and Lee5 to decrease clinical side effects, the ‘nominal’ treatment margins have been shrinking so that the normal tissue complication probabilities of rectumReference Cheung, Zhang and Wagener6 and bladder7 could be controlled. This is largely based on the ability of image guidanceReference Court, Dong and Lee8,Reference Wong, Grimm and Uematsu9 to aim at the targets. Some centres are now using very tight 3–5 mm margins arguably without deep understanding of our current knowledge of errors inherent in deformable registration, although organ motions have now been well considered.Reference Li, Li and Zhang10–Reference Tudor, Rimmer, Nguyen, Cowen and Thomas18 Three millimetre margins may be enough because of organ motion and thus the dose smearing effects.Reference Melancon, O’Daniel and Zhang13 However, there seems to be a hidden layer of knowledge behind the choice of ‘nominal’ margins. The gap of knowledge at this point is the deformable registration accuracy that needs to be further explored to ensure the knowledge from academic centre should flow to the community. Many of the nuances implicitly understood when academicians treat cancers with tight margins are not easily written down in manuscripts so that they are omitted. This needs to be and could easily be corrected with an update of this field.

MRI-GUIDED PROSTATE RADIOTHERAPY

Tumour response during the course of radiation is neither currently monitored nor used in determining radiation treatment plan and the final dose given. MRI could potentially provide the response data when combined with optical tomography.Reference Cheung19,Reference Ng, Zygmanski, Lyatskaya, Amico and Cormack20 This area has an enormous potential for individualization of radiation treatment and improvement of outcome. This is particularly true when radiation sensitization is used. As prostate cancer is known to be heterogeneous, molecular response data of the intra-prostatic tumour foci may allow targeted dose escalation to these areas without irradiating the entire prostate, thus limiting the surrounding normal tissue irradiation.Reference Cheung19 Furthermore, normal tissue response monitoring by MRI may help to guide the development and use of targeted therapeutics that may lower normal tissue toxicity.

THE CHALLENGE AND SOLUTION OF USING MRI IN PROSTATE RADIATION TREATMENT PLANNING

Because of the large deformation introduced by an endorectal probe, registering diagnostic MRI with a probe to the treatment planning MRI without a probe has been intractable until recentlyReference Cheung and Krishnan3. Some investigators have suggested using hardware solution to by-pass performing deformable registration involving a large deformation. This has prompted the use of 3T MRI with a body coil for both diagnosis and radiation treatment planning. However, the signal increases only linearly with magnetic field strength. On the other hand, in the distance between the probe and prostate decreases, the signal strength increases in a power of 2. In other words, 3T MRI cannot replace the endorectal coil.Reference Noworolski, Reed, Kurhanewicz and Vigneron21 Alternatively, some researchers have used an endorectal balloon to stabilize the prostate each day during the course of about 8 weeks of treatment.Reference Both, Wang and Plastaras22 This strategy is associated with patient discomfort and an increase in acute rectal toxicity. Furthermore, the prostate can still have a measurable movement due to variable positioning of the endorectal balloonReference Hung, Garzotto and Kaurin23 requiring image guidance for daily treatment.Reference Ng, Zygmanski, Lyatskaya, Amico and Cormack20 Taken together, these strategies may only complement the use of deformable registration of prostate MRI rather than replacing it. We have shown that the deformed MRI and non-deformed MRI could mismatch more than 5–10 mm. We urge caution, despite the vast utility of MRI in guiding prostate cancer treatment planning; without an accurate multimodal deformable registration program, the treatment margin will need to be considerably increased to account for mis-registration. We have deposited critical parts of our codes in Matlab implementation in open source Matlab Central (http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/authors/37883) including codes to register MRIs, quantify the mis-registration and compute the additional margin needed to account for the image registration error. However, using a priori expert contours of the prostate and prostate cancer, the deformable registration could be as accurate as 1 mm. This could be done on a desktop from contouring to final result I about 40 minutes.Reference Cheung and Krishnan3 This is the first time, accurate MRI deformable registration could be achieved at a clinical feasible time frame. I suggest that it is time to start thinking about using MRI information in our prostate cancer planning and guidance.

References

1.Wang, H, Dong, L, Lii, MF et al. . Implementation and validation of a three-dimensional deformable registration algorithm for targeted prostate cancer radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005;61:725–735.Google Scholar
2.Wang, H, Dong, L, O’Daniel, J et al. . Validation of an accelerated ‘demons’ algorithm for deformable image registration in radiation therapy. Phys Med Biol 2005;50:2887–2905.Google Scholar
3.Cheung, R, Krishnan, K. Using manual prostate contours to enhance deformable registration of endorectal MRI. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2012;108:330–337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Cheung, R, Tucker, SL, Dong, L, Kuban, D. Dose-response for biochemical control among high-risk prostate cancer patients after external beam radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;56:1234–1240.Google Scholar
5.Cheung, R, Tucker, SL, Lee, AK et al. . The dose response characteristics of low and intermediate risk prostate cancer treated with external beam radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005;61:993–1002.Google Scholar
6.Cheung, R, Zhang, X, Wagener, M et al. . Characterizing the interaction between radiation sensitivity and epidermal growth factor receptor inhibition in prostate cancer cell lines. Oncol Rep 2008;19:1071ߝ1077.Google Scholar
7.Cheung, MR, Tucker, SL, Dong, L et al. . Investigation of bladder dose and volume factors influencing late urinary toxicity after external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;67:1059–1065.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Court, LE, Dong, L, Lee, AK et al. . An automatic CT-guided adaptive radiation therapy technique by online modification of multileaf collimator leaf positions for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005;62:154–163.Google Scholar
9.Wong, JR, Grimm, L, Uematsu, M et al. . Image-guided radiotherapy for prostate cancer by CT-linear accelerator combination: prostate movements and dosimetric considerations. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005;61:561–569.Google Scholar
10.Li, FX, Li, JB, Zhang, YJ et al. . Comparison of the planning target volume based on three-dimensional CT and four-dimensional CT images of non-small-cell lung cancer. Radiother Oncol 2011;99:176–180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Lee, JY, Choi, BI, Chung, YE et al. . Clinical value of CT/MR-US fusion imaging for radiofrequency ablation of hepatic nodules. Eur J Radiol 2012;81:2281–2289.Google Scholar
12.Parker, CC, Damyanovich, A, Haycocks, T et al. . Magnetic resonance imaging in the radiation treatment planning of localized prostate cancer using intra-prostatic fiducial markers for computed tomography co-registration. Radiother Oncol 2003;66:217–224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Melancon, AD, O’Daniel, JC, Zhang, L et al. . Is a 3-mm intrafractional margin sufficient for daily image-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy of prostate cancer? Radiother Oncol 2007;85:251–259.Google Scholar
14.van Herk, M. Errors and margins in radiotherapy. Semin Radiat Oncol 2004;14:52–64.Google Scholar
15.Frank, SJ, Dong, L, Kudchadker, RJ et al. . Quantification of prostate and seminal vesicle interfraction variation during IMRT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;71:813–820.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Zhang, P, Mah, D, Happersett, L et al. . Determination of action thresholds for electromagnetic tracking system-guided hypofractionated prostate radiotherapy using volumetric modulated arc therapy. Med Phys 2011;38:4001–4008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.O’Daniel, JC, Dong, L, Zhang, L et al. . Dosimetric comparison of four target alignment methods for prostate cancer radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;66:883–891.Google Scholar
18.Tudor, GS, Rimmer, YL, Nguyen, TB, Cowen, MA, Thomas, SJ. Consideration of the likely benefit from implementation of prostate image-guided radiotherapy using current margin sizes: a radiobiological analysis. Br J Radiol 2012;85:1263–1271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Cheung, MR. The need and prospect of individualized external beam radiotherapy dose escalation beyond 80 gy to treat prostate cancer: in regard to Eade et al. (Int J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2007;68:682–689). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;70:645.Google Scholar
20.Ng, SK, Zygmanski, P, Lyatskaya, Y, D’Amico, AV, Cormack, RA. Localization of a portion of an endorectal balloon for prostate image-guided radiation therapy using cone-beam tomosynthesis: a feasibility study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012;83:e257–e264.Google Scholar
21.Noworolski, SM, Reed, GD, Kurhanewicz, J, Vigneron, DB. Post-processing correction of the endorectal coil reception effects in MR spectroscopic imaging of the prostate. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010;32:654–662.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Both, S, Wang, KK, Plastaras, JP et al. . Real-time study of prostate intrafraction motion during external beam radiotherapy with daily endorectal balloon. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011;81:1302–1309.Google Scholar
23.Hung, AY, Garzotto, M, Kaurin, D. Minimal benefit of an endorectal balloon for prostate immobilization as verified by daily localization. Med Dosim 2011;36:195–199.Google Scholar