title: Mapping of dose distribution from IMRT onto MRI-guided high dose rate brachytherapy using deformable image registration for cervical cancer treatments: preliminary study with commercially available software.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  For patients undergoing external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and brachytherapy, recommendations for target doses and constraints are based on calculation of the equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions (EQD2) from each phase. At present, the EBRT dose distribution is assumed to be uniform throughout the pelvis. We performed a preliminary study to determine whether deformable dose distribution mapping from the EBRT onto magnetic resonance (MR) images for the brachytherapy would yield differences in doses for organs at risk (OARs) and high-risk clinical target volume (HR-CTV).
  
  
  METHODS
  Nine cervical cancer patients were treated to a total dose of 45 Gy in 25 fractions using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), followed by MRI-based 3D high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy. Retrospectively, the IMRT planning CT images were fused with the MR image for each fraction of brachytherapy using deformable image registration. The deformed IMRT dose onto MR images were converted to EQD2 and compared to the uniform dose assumption.
  
  
  RESULTS
  For all patients, the EQD2 from the EBRT phase was significantly higher with deformable registration than with the conventional uniform dose distribution assumption. The mean EQD2 ± SD for HR-CTV D90 was 45.7 ± 0.7 Gy vs. 44.3 Gy for deformable vs. uniform dose distribution, respectively (p < 0.001). The dose to 2 cc of the bladder, rectum, and sigmoid was 46.4 ± 1.2 Gy, 46.2 ± 1.0 Gy, and 48.0 ± 2.5 Gy, respectively with deformable dose distribution, and was significantly higher than with uniform dose distribution (43.2 Gy for all OAR, p < 0.001).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This study reveals that deformed EBRT dose distribution to HR-CTV and OARs in MR images for brachytherapy is technically feasible, and achieves differences compared to a uniform dose distribution. Therefore, the assumption that EBRT contributes the same dose value may need to be carefully investigated further based on deformable image registration.
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
authors.forename: Hayeon
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Kim
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
authors.forename: M Saiful
authors.initials: MS
authors.lastname: Huq
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
authors.forename: Chris
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Houser
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
authors.forename: Sushil
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Beriwal
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
authors.forename: Dariusz
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Michalski
keywords: IMRT; MRI; cervical cancer; deformable image registration
references.citation: J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2012 Sep 06;13(5):3829
references.pmid: 22955647
references.citation: J Contemp Brachytherapy. 2013 Mar;5(1):10-6
references.pmid: 23634150
references.citation: Med Phys. 2013 Jan;40(1):011702
references.pmid: 23298072
references.citation: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2008 Aug;20(6):426-32
references.pmid: 18524555
references.citation: Radiother Oncol. 2013 Apr;107(1):52-7
references.pmid: 23490266
references.citation: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 Jul 1;62(3):901-11
references.pmid: 15936576
references.citation: Med Phys. 2010 Jul;37(7):3760-72
references.pmid: 20831084
references.citation: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Jan 1;76(1):104-9
references.pmid: 19619956
references.citation: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000 Aug 1;48(1):201-11
references.pmid: 10924990
references.citation: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Jul 15;80(4):1268-77
references.pmid: 21129854
references.citation: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2011 Dec;23(10):685-90
references.pmid: 21908180
references.citation: Acta Oncol. 2008;47(7):1325-36
references.pmid: 18661430
references.citation: Radiother Oncol. 2006 Jan;78(1):67-77
references.pmid: 16403584
references.citation: Radiother Oncol. 2013 Apr;107(1):1-5
references.pmid: 23541642
references.citation: Radiother Oncol. 2007 May;83(2):148-55
references.pmid: 17531904
references.citation: Med Phys. 2013 Apr;40(4):041911
references.pmid: 23556905
references.citation: J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2007 Nov 05;8(4):96-113
references.pmid: 18449149
references.citation: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2009 Apr;21(3):175-82
references.pmid: 19101130
references.citation: Radiother Oncol. 2013 Apr;107(1):58-62
references.pmid: 23453543
references.citation: Radiother Oncol. 2005 Mar;74(3):235-45
references.pmid: 15763303
references.citation: Brachytherapy. 2009 Apr-Jun;8(2):240-247
references.pmid: 19230789
references.citation: Med Phys. 2006 Sep;33(9):3304-12
references.pmid: 17022225
references.citation: Radiother Oncol. 2010 Feb;94(2):248-53
references.pmid: 20080309
references.citation: Radiother Oncol. 2009 Nov;93(2):311-5
references.pmid: 19679365
references.citation: Radiother Oncol. 2006 Feb;78(2):185-93
references.pmid: 16466820
references.citation: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Feb 1;79(2):356-62
references.pmid: 20385450
references.citation: Radiother Oncol. 2009 May;91(2):166-72
references.pmid: 19062118
references.citation: Radiother Oncol. 2009 May;91(2):173-80
references.pmid: 19243846