Impact of bulk density assignment of bone on MRI-based abdominal region radiotherapy planning for MR-linac workflow.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the impact of bone relative electron density (rED) assignment on radiotherapy planning for the abdominal region.

METHODS

Twenty patients who received abdominal radiotherapy using MR-Linac and underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) simulation were analyzed. The reference plan (RP) was established using both CT and MR image sets (RP_CT and RP_MRI). The RP_MRI utilized the bulk density method. The recalculated RPs derived from various rED assignment methods were evaluated for comparison on both datasets. The RPs were recalculated by excluding rED assignment for bones (scenario A). Based on the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements report, lung contours were assigned rED of 0.258, and body contours were assigned 1.000 (scenario B) and 1.019 (scenario C). Dose volume histogram (DVH) differences between the three recalculated scenarios and RPs were evaluated. D95, D99, and D1cc were evaluated for target volumes, including gross tumor volume, internal target volume, and planning target volume. DVH parameters, including D1cc for each abdominal organ at risk (OAR) and the mean dose to the liver and kidneys, were evaluated. Three-dimensional local gamma analysis was conducted to assess dose distribution differences between the three recalculated scenarios and RPs.

RESULTS

In all scenarios of the CT- and MRI-based validation, the average gamma pass rates (2%/2 mm) were higher than 95%. In the CT-based validation, all target DVHs across the 20 patients showed that none exceeded 2% error in scenario A, whereas 2% and 14% exceeded the threshold in scenarios B and C, respectively. For OARs in CT and MRI-based validation, absolute maximum dose differences when compared with those of the RP were 0.19 Gy and 0.22 Gy, respectively, in scenario A.

CONCLUSION

Excluding bone rED considerations in abdominal treatment planning may not yield notable clinical differences.