Encrypted login | home

Program Information

Feasibility of MRI-Only Based IMRT Planning for Pancreatic Cancer

no image available
P Prior

P Prior*, M Botros , X Chen , E Paulson , B Erickson , X Li , Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI


SU-E-J-193 Sunday 3:00PM - 6:00PM Room: Exhibit Hall

Purpose: With the increasing use of MRI simulation and the advent of MRI-guided delivery, it is desirable to use MRI only for treatment planning. In this study, we assess the dosimetric difference between MRI- and CT-based IMRT planning for pancreatic cancer.

Methods: Planning CTs and MRIs acquired for a representative pancreatic cancer patient were used. MRI-based planning utilized forced relative electron density (rED) assignment of organ specific values from IRCU report 46, where rED = 1.029 for PTV and a rED = 1.036 for non-specified tissue (NST). Six IMRT plans were generated with clinical dose-volume (DV) constraints using a research Monaco planning system employing Monte Carlo dose calculation with optional perpendicular magnetic field (MF) of 1.5T. The following five plans were generated and compared with the planning CT: 1.) CT plan with MF and dose recalculation without optimization; 2.) MRI (T2) plan with target and OARs redrawn based on MRI, forced rED, no MF, and recalculation without optimization; 3.) Similar as in 2 but with MF; 4.) MRI plan with MF but without optimization; and 5.) Similar as in 4 but with optimization.

Results: Generally, noticeable differences in PTV point doses and DV parameters (DVPs) between the CT- and MRI-based plans with and without the MF were observed. These differences between the optimized plans were generally small, mostly within 2%. Larger differences were observed in point doses and mean doses for certain OARs between the CT and MRI plan, mostly due to differences between image acquisition times.

Conclusion: MRI only based IMRT planning for pancreatic cancer is feasible. The differences observed between the optimized CT and MRI plans with or without the MF were practically negligible if excluding the differences between MRI and CT defined structures.

Contact Email: