Dosimetric Effects of Air Cavities for MRI-Guided Online Adaptive Radiation Therapy (MRgART) of Prostate Bed after Radical Prostatectomy

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate dosimetric impact of air cavities and their corresponding electron density correction for 0.35 tesla (T) Magnetic Resonance-guided Online Adaptive Radiation Therapy (MRgART) of prostate bed patients. Methods: Three 0.35 T MRgRT plans (anterior–posterior (AP) beam, AP–PA beams, and clinical intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)) were generated on a prostate bed patient’s (Patient A) planning computed tomography (CT) with artificial rectal air cavities of various sizes (0–3 cm, 0.5 cm increments). Furthermore, two 0.35 T MRgART plans (‘Deformed’ and ‘Override’) were generated on a prostate bed patient’s (Patient B) daily magnetic resonance image (MRI) with artificial rectal air cavities of various sizes (0–3 cm, 0.5 cm increments) and on five prostate bed patient’s (Patient 1–5) daily MRIs (2 MRIs: Fraction A and B) with real air cavities. For each MRgART plan, daily MRI electron density map was obtained by deformable registration with simulation CT. In the ‘Deformed’ plan, a clinical IMRT plan is calculated on the daily MRI with electron density map obtained from deformable registration only. In the ‘Override’ plan, daily MRI and simulation CT air cavities are manually corrected and bulk assigned air and water density on the registered electron density map, respectively. Afterwards, the clinical IMRT plan is calculated. Results: For the MRgRT plans, AP and AP–PA plans’ rectum/rectal wall max dose increased with increasing air cavity size, where the 3 cm air cavity resulted in a 20%/17% and 13%/13% increase, relative to no air cavity, respectively. Clinical IMRT plan was robust to air cavity size, where dose change remained less than 1%. For the MRgART plans, daily MRI electron density maps, obtained from deformable registration with simulation CT, was unable to accurately produce electron densities reflecting the air cavities. However, for the artificial daily MRI air cavities, dosimetric change between ‘Deformed’ and ‘Override’ plan was small (<4%). Similarly, for the real daily MRI air cavities, clinical constraint changes between ‘Deformed’ and ‘Override’ plan was negligible and did not lead to change in clinical decision for adaptive planning except for two fractions. In these fractions, the ‘Override’ plan indicated that the bladder max dose and rectum V35.7 exceeded the constraint, while the ‘Deformed’ plan showed acceptable dose, although the absolute difference was only 0.3 Gy and 0.03 cc, respectively. Conclusion: Clinical 0.35 T IMRT prostate bed plans are dosimetrically robust to air cavities. MRgART air cavity electron density correction shows clinically insignificant change and is not warranted on low-field systems.