A multi-institutional comparison of retrospective deformable dose accumulation for online adaptive magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 2024 Apr;30:100588
Date
06/17/2024Pubmed ID
38883145Pubmed Central ID
PMC11176923DOI
10.1016/j.phro.2024.100588Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85194426424 (requires institutional sign-in at Scopus site) 1 CitationAbstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Application of different deformable dose accumulation (DDA) solutions makes institutional comparisons after online-adaptive magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy (OA-MRgRT) challenging. The aim of this multi-institutional study was to analyze accuracy and agreement of DDA-implementations in OA-MRgRT.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: One gold standard (GS) case deformed with a biomechanical-model and five clinical cases consisting of prostate (2x), cervix, liver, and lymph node cancer, treated with OA-MRgRT, were analyzed. Six centers conducted DDA using institutional implementations. Deformable image registration (DIR) and DDA results were compared using the contour metrics Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), surface-DSC, Hausdorff-distance (HD95%), and accumulated dose-volume histograms (DVHs) analyzed via intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and clinical dosimetric criteria (CDC).
RESULTS: For the GS, median DDA errors ranged from 0.0 to 2.8 Gy across contours and implementations. DIR of clinical cases resulted in DSC > 0.8 for up to 81.3% of contours and a variability of surface-DSC values depending on the implementation. Maximum HD95%=73.3 mm was found for duodenum in the liver case. Although DVH ICC > 0.90 was found after DDA for all but two contours, relevant absolute CDC differences were observed in clinical cases: Prostate I/II showed maximum differences in bladder V28Gy (10.2/7.6%), while for cervix, liver, and lymph node the highest differences were found for rectum D2cm3 (2.8 Gy), duodenum Dmax (7.1 Gy), and rectum D0.5cm3 (4.6 Gy).
CONCLUSION: Overall, high agreement was found between the different DIR and DDA implementations. Case- and algorithm-dependent differences were observed, leading to potentially clinically relevant results. Larger studies are needed to define future DDA-guidelines.
