Quantifying the dosimetric impact of online daily adaptation for MR-guided RT in cervical cancer
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/1651-226X.2025.42898Keywords:
Cervical cancer, MRgART, Online adaptation, inter-intrafraction dosimetricAbstract
Purpose: This study assessed the inter- and intra-fractional dosimetric impact of MR-Linac-based adaptive radiotherapy for cervical cancer (CC).
Methods: A retrospective analysis of five node-negative, locally advanced cervical cancer patients treated under the MOMENTUM study (NCT04075305) using adapt-to-shape (ATS) on an Elekta Unity MR-Linac. Assessing the dosimetric impact of daily online adaptations: (1) comparing dose between daily adapted (MR-adapted) and non-adapted (MR-guided) plans, by quantifying dose differences relative to reference plans (by 2 and 5%) and evaluating adaptation frequency; (2) performing intra-fraction dose evaluations. Dose metrics for targets and organs at risk (OARs) were evaluated following EMBRACE II guidelines.
Results: MR-adapted plans improved target coverage or reduced OAR dose in 82–100% of fractions at a 2% dose deviation (and in 25–84% at a 5% deviation), compared to MR-guided plans. Dose reductions for OARs ranged from 2 to 8% for D0.1%, 4.77–16.70% for V4000cGy and 2.10–14.00% for V3000cGy. Intra-fraction analysis showed that the difference between daily planned and delivered doses in all target structures was not clinically significant, ranging from 0.08 to 2.20%, except two fractions that experienced higher deviations (5%) in ITV45. Treatment was well-tolerated, with no Grade 2 or 3 toxicities reported.
Interpretation: MR-guided plans required adaptation in 25–100% of the fractions when compared to MR-adapted plans. MR-adapted plans demonstrated enhanced target dose consistency and reduced OAR dose for all patients, highlighting the benefits of daily adaptation. Despite longer treatment times, dose accuracy was preserved. Toxicity results for MRgART in CC appear promising.
Downloads
References
Gandhi AK, Sharma DN, Rath GK, Julka PK, Subramani V, Sharma S, et al. Early clinical outcomes and toxicity of intensity modulated versus conventional pelvic radiation therapy for locally advanced cervix carcinoma: a prospective randomized study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;87:542–8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJROBP.2013.06.2059 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.06.2059
Naik A, Gurjar OP, Gupta KL, Singh K, Nag P, Bhandari V. Comparison of dosimetric parameters and acute toxicity of intensity-modulated and three-dimensional radiotherapy in patients with cervix carcinoma: a randomized prospective study. Cancer/Radiothérapie. 2016;20:370–6.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CANRAD.2016.05.011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canrad.2016.05.011
Ahmad R, Hoogeman MS, Bondar M, Dhawtal V, Quint S, De Pree I, et al. Increasing treatment accuracy for cervical cancer patients using correlations between bladder-filling change and cervix-uterus displacements: proof of principle. Radiother Oncol. 2011;98:340–6.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2010.11.010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2010.11.010
Walsh L, Morgia M, Fyles A, Milosevic M. Technological advances in radiotherapy for cervical cancer. Curr Opin Oncol. 2011;23:512–8.
https://doi.org/10.1097/CCO.0b013e3283499d93 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CCO.0b013e3283499d93
Tyagi N, Lewis JH, Yashar CM, Vo D, Jiang SB, Mundt AJ, et al. Daily online cone beam computed tomography to assess interfractional motion in patients with intact cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;80:273–80.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.06.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.06.003
Jadon R, Pembroke CA, Hanna CL, Palaniappan N, Evans M, Cleves AE, et al. A systematic review of organ motion and image-guided strategies in external beam radiotherapy for cervical cancer. Clin Oncol. 2014;26:185–96.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2013.11.031 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2013.11.031
On Target 2: Updated guidance for image-guided radiotherapy [Internet]. London: The Royal College of Radiologists; 2021 [cited 2024 Dec 15]. Available from: https://www.rcr.ac.uk/our-services/all-our-publications/clinical-oncology-publications/on-target-2-updated-guidance-for-image-guided-radiotherapy/
Winkel D, Bol GH, Kroon PS, van Asselen B, Hackett SS, Werensteijn-Honingh AM, et al. Adaptive radiotherapy: the Elekta Unity MR-linac concept. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2019;18:54–9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctro.2019.04.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctro.2019.04.001
Lakomy DS, Yang J, Vedam S, Wang J, Lee B, Sobremonte A, et al. Clinical implementation and initial experience with a 1.5 Tesla MR-Linac for MR-guided radiation therapy for gynecologic cancer: an R-IDEAL stage 1 and 2a first in humans feasibility study of new technology implementation. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2022;12:e296–305.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PRRO.2022.03.002
Ding S, Liu H, Wang B, Li Y, Liu B, Ouyang Y, et al. Inter- and intrafraction bladder and rectum motion in patients with cervical cancer under MR-guided radiotherapy on a 1.5T MR-Linac. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021;111:e612.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.07.1630 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.07.1630
Li JY, Ouyang Y, Cao X. First postoperative cervical cancer patients treated with a 1.5 unity MR-Linac and analysis of treatment safety and acute toxicity. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2020;108:e485.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.07.1542 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.07.1542
Chang ATY, Yang B, Wong JT. 2644: clinical experience of adaptive radiotherapy using MR-Linac or tomotherapy for gynecological cancers. Radiother Oncol. 2024;194:S1095–7.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8140(24)02817-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8140(24)02817-2
The MOMENTUM Study: the multiple outcome evaluation of radiation therapy using the MR-Linac study – full text view. ClinicalTrials.gov; n.d. [cited 2024 Feb 26]. Available from: https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04075305
de Mol van Otterloo SR, Christodouleas JP, Blezer ELA, Akhiat H, Brown K, Choudhury A, et al. The MOMENTUM study: an international registry for the evidence-based introduction of MR-guided adaptive therapy. Front Oncol. 2020;10:1328.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.01328 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.01328
Tanderup K, Pötter R, Lindegaard J, Kirisits C, Juergenliemk-Schulz I, de Leeuw A, et al. Image guided intensity modulated External beam radiochemotherapy and MRI based adaptive Brachytherapy in locally advanced Cervical cancer. EMBRACE II Protocol; 2019 [Internet]. [cited in 2024 Dec 13] Available from: https://www.embracestudy.dk/UserUpload/PublicDocuments/EMBRACE%20II%20Protocol.pdf
Pötter R, Tanderup K, Kirisits C, de Leeuw A, Kirchheiner K, Nout R, et al. The EMBRACE II study: the outcome and prospect of two decades of evolution within the GEC-ESTRO GYN working group and the EMBRACE studies. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2018;9:48–60.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctro.2018.01.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctro.2018.01.001
Jadon R, Higgins E, Hanna L, Evans M, Coles B, Staffurth J. A systematic review of dose-volume predictors and constraints for late bowel toxicity following pelvic radiotherapy. Radiat Oncol. 2019;14:57.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-019-1262-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-019-1262-8
Chang AT, Tan LT, Ng DS. Challenges for quality assurance of target volume delineation in clinical trials. Clin Trials Front Oncol. 2017;7:221.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2017.00221 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2017.00221
Davison M, Kim D, Keller H. Radiotherapy dose fractionation under parameter uncertainty. AIP Conf Proc. 2011;1368:179–82.
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3663489 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3663489
Scaife JE, Bs MB, Barnett GC, Noble DJ, Bchir MB, Jena R, et al. Exploiting biological and physical determinants of radiotherapy toxicity to individualize treatment. Br J Radiol. 2015;88(1051):20150172.
https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20150172 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20150172
Bolt M, Clark CH, Nisbet A, Chen T. Quantification of the uncertainties within the radiotherapy dosimetry chain and their impact on tumour control. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2021;19:33-38.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phro.2021.06.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phro.2021.06.004
Ahmad R, Bondar L, Voet P, Mens J-W, Quint S, Dhawtal G, et al. A margin-of-the-day online adaptive intensity-modulated radiotherapy strategy for cervical cancer provides superior treatment accuracy compared to clinically recommended margins: a dosimetric evaluation. Acta Oncologica. Acta Oncol. 2013; 52(7):1430-1436. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/0284186X.2013.813640
Rigaud B, Simon A, Gobeli M, Lafond C, Leseur J, Barateau A, et al. CBCT-guided evolutive library for cervical adaptive IMRT. Med Phys. 2018;45:1379–90.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.12818 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.12818
Bondar ML, Hoogeman MS, Mens JW, Quint S, Ahmad R, Dhawtal G, et al. Individualized nonadaptive and online-adaptive intensity-modulated radiotherapy treatment strategies for cervical cancer patients based on pretreatment acquired variable bladder filling computed tomography scans. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;83:1617–23.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.10.011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.10.011
Lakomy DS, Yang J, Vedam S, Wang J, Lee B, Sobremonte A, et al. Clinical implementation and initial experience with a 1.5 Tesla MR-linac for MR-guided radiotherapy for gynecologic cancer: an R-IDEAL stage 1/2a first in humans/feasibility study of new technology implementation. MedRxiv. 2021;12(4):e296-e305. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prro.2022.03.002
https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.12.03.21266962 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.12.03.21266962
Nachbar M, lo Russo M, Gani C, Boeke S, Wegener D, Paulsen F, et al. Automatic AI-based contouring of prostate MRI for online adaptive radiotherapy. Z Med Phys. 2024;34:197–207.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ZEMEDI.2023.05.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zemedi.2023.05.001
Hu Y, Nguyen H, Smith C, Chen T, Byrne M, Archibald-Heeren B, et al. Clinical assessment of a novel machine-learning automated contouring tool for radiotherapy planning. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2023 Jul;24(7):e13949.
https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13949 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13949
Yeung AR, Pugh SL, Klopp AH, Gil KM, Wenzel L, Westin SN, et al. Improvement in patient-reported outcomes with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (RT) compared with standard RT: a report from the NRG Oncology RTOG 1203 Study. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:1685–92.
https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.19.02381 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.19.02381
Gikandi A, Hallet J, Koerkamp BG, Clark CJ, Lillemoe KD, Narayan RR, et al. Distinguishing clinical from statistical significances in contemporary comparative effectiveness research. Ann Surg. 2024;279:907–12.
https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000006250 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000006250
[PDF] Common pitfalls in statistical analysis: clinical versus statistical significance. Semantic Scholar; n.d. [cited 2024 Sep 24]. Available from: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Common-pitfalls-in-statistical-analysis%3A-Clinical-Ranganathan-Pramesh/4a58cb30f7c1ce4bc78769a6cfad26e4a62e83e9
Alshamrani A, Aznar M, Hoskin P, Chuter R, Eccles CL. The current use of adaptive strategies for external beam radiotherapy in cervical cancer: a systematic review. Clin Oncol. 2024;36(12):e483-e493.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CLON.2024.09.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2024.09.005
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Amerah Alshamrani, Robert Chuter, Marianne Aznar, Peter Hoskin, Claire Nelder, Ananya Choudhury, Lisa Barraclough, Cynthia L. Eccles
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
