ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2017
Clinical workflow for MR-only simulation and planning in prostate.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
55 citing papers in PubMed.
- MR-PROTECT: Clinical feasibility of a prostate MRI-only radiotherapy treatment workflow and investigation of acceptance criteria.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2020Trial
- A comparative assessment of deep learning and knowledge-based dose prediction models for advanced radiotherapy planning of prostate cancer with focal boosting.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Development and implementation of an MRI-only simulation, planning, and treatment workflow for prostate radiotherapy using synthetic CT on MR-linac.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Optimizing Treatment Precision: Role of Adaptive Radiotherapy in Modern Anal Cancer Management.Cancers · 2025Review
- Clinical implementation of patient-specific quality assurance for synthetic computed tomography.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Abdominal MR Multitasking for radiotherapy treatment planning: A motion-resolved and multicontrast 3D imaging approach.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2025Article
- First implementation and results of online adaptive radiotherapy for cervical cancer based on CT-Linac combination.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Automated tracking of morphologic changes in weekly magnetic resonance imaging during head and neck radiotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
- Clinical implementation of magnetic resonance imaging simulation for radiation oncology planning: 5 year experience.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2023Article
- MRI-only radiotherapy from an economic perspective: Can new techniques in prostate cancer treatment be cost saving?Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2023Article
- The future of MRI in radiation therapy: Challenges and opportunities for the MR community.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2022Review
- Delineation of prostatic calcification using quantitative susceptibility mapping: Spatial accuracy for magnetic resonance-only radiotherapy planning.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Radiation Therapy.IEEE transactions on radiation and plasma medical sciences · 2022Article
- A narrative review of MRI acquisition for MR-guided-radiotherapy in prostate cancer.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2022Review
- MR SIGnature MAtching (MRSIGMA) with retrospective self-evaluation for real-time volumetric motion imaging.Physics in medicine and biology · 2021Article
- Investigation of the clinical inter-observer bias in prostate fiducial marker image registration between CT and MR images.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2021Article
- Clinical experience and cost evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging -only workflow in radiation therapy planning of prostate cancer.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2021Article
- Future mainstream platform for online adaptive radiotherapy will be using on-board MR rather than on-board (CB) CT images.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021Article
- Patient position verification in magnetic-resonance imaging only radiotherapy of anal and rectal cancers.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2021Article
- Predictors for post-treatment biopsy outcomes after prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo describe the details and experience of implementing a MR-only workflow in the clinic for simulation and planning of prostate cancer patients.
methodsForty-eight prostate cancer patients from June 2016 - Dec 2016 receiving external beam radiotherapy were scheduled to undergo MR-only simulation. MR images were acquired for contouring (T2w axial, coronal, sagittal), synthetic-CT generation (3D FFE-based) and fiducial identification (3D bFFE-based). The total acquisition time was 25 min. Syn-CT was generated at the console using commercial software called MRCAT. As part of acceptance testing of the MRCAT package, external laser positioning system QA (< 2 mm) and geometric fidelity QA (< 2 mm within 50 cm LR and 30 cm AP) were performed and baseline values were set. Our current combined CT + MR simulation process was modified to accommodate a MRCAT-based MR-only simulation workflow. An automated step-by-step process using a MIM™ workflow was created for contouring on the MR images. Patient setup for treatment was achieved by matching the MRCAT DRRs with the orthogonal KV radiographs based on either fiducial ROIs or bones. 3-D CBCTs were acquired and compared with the MR/syn-CT to assess the rectum and bladder filling compared to simulation conditions.
resultsForty-two patients successfully underwent MR-only simulation and met all of our institutional dosimetric objectives that were developed based on a CT + MR-based workflow. The remaining six patients either had a hip prosthesis or their large body size fell outside of the geometric fidelity QA criteria and thus they were not candidates for MR-only simulation. A total time saving of ~15 min was achieved with MR-based simulation as compared to CT + MR-based simulation. An automated and organized MIM workflow made contouring on MR much easier, quicker and more accurate compared with combined CT + MR images because the temporal variations in normal structure was minimal. 2D and 3D treatment setup localization based on bones/fiducials using a MRCAT reference image was successfully achieved for all cases.
conclusionsMR-only simulation and planning with equivalent or superior target delineation, planning and treatment setup localization accuracy is feasible in a clinical setting. Future work will focus on implementing a robust 3D isotropic acquisition for contouring.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.