Prostate diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in MR-guided radiotherapy: Reproducibility assessment on 1.5 T MR-Linac and

Oi Lei Wong1, Jing Yuan1, Darren M C Poon2

  • 1Research Department, Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, Happy Valley, Hong Kong SAR, China.

PubMed
Abstract

Insights

Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) shows promise for prostate cancer radiotherapy. This study found differences in apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values between MR-simulator and MR-Linac systems, highlighting the need for careful interpretation of DWI images in MRgRT.

Area of Science:

  • Radiotherapy Physics and Technology
  • Medical Imaging and Radiology
  • Oncology and Cancer Research

Background:

  • Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) is crucial for image-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) in prostate cancer.
  • Challenges include image distortion, artifacts, and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) reproducibility.
  • Assessing DWI quality and ADC reproducibility across different 1.5 T systems is essential for clinical implementation.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate DWI image quality and ADC reproducibility on a 1.5 T MR-simulator and a 1.5 T MR-Linac.
  • To compare measurements from an ACR MRI phantom and prostate cancer patients undergoing MRgRT.
  • To identify potential systematic differences in ADC values between the two 1.5 T systems.

Main Methods:

  • DW-MRI scans were performed on 19 patients and an ACR MRI phantom using both 1.5 T MR-simulator and MR-Linac.
  • ADC homogeneity was assessed using 1D profile flatness (FL) in the phantom.
  • Image quality, geometric distortion, and ADC reproducibility were evaluated using Likert scales, quantitative measurements, and Bland-Altman analysis.

Main Results:

  • Both systems showed high ADC homogeneity in the phantom (FL > 87.5%).
  • Patient image quality scores were acceptable, but intra-prostatic lesions were often poorly discernible.
  • MR-Linac exhibited more geometric distortion; significant differences in ADC values were found between the MR-simulator and MR-Linac (p < 0.05).

Conclusions:

  • Systematic differences in ADC values exist between 1.5 T MR-simulator and MR-Linac systems.
  • Caution is advised when interpreting MR-Linac DWI due to occasional severe artifacts.
  • Further research is needed to validate DWI and ADC as reliable imaging biomarkers for prostate cancer MRgRT.