High grade glioma radiation therapy on a high field 1.5 Tesla MR-Linac - workflow and initial experience with daily adapt-to-position (ATP) MR guidance: A first report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study reports the workflow and initial clinical experience of high grade glioma (HGG) radiotherapy on the 1.5 T MR-Linac (MRL), with a focus on the temporal variations of the tumor and feasibility of multi-parametric image (mpMRI) acquisition during routine treatment workflow. Materials and methods Ten HGG patients treated with radiation within the first year of the MRL’s clinical operation, between October 2019 and August 2020, were identified from a prospective database. Workflow timings were recorded and online adaptive plans were generated using the Adapt-To-Position (ATP) workflow. Temporal variation within the FLAIR hyperintense region (FHR) was assessed by the relative FHR volumes (n = 281 contours) and migration distances (maximum linear displacement of the volume). Research mpMRIs were acquired on the MRL during radiation and changes in selected functional parameters were investigated within the FHR. Results All patients completed radiotherapy to a median dose of 60 Gy (range, 54-60 Gy) in 30 fractions (range, 30-33), receiving a total of 287 fractions on the MRL. The mean in-room time per fraction with or without post-beam research imaging was 42.9 minutes (range, 25.0–69.0 minutes) and 37.3 minutes (range, 24.0–51.0 minutes), respectively. Three patients (30%) required re-planning between fractions 9 to 12 due to progression of tumor and/or edema identified on daily MRL imaging. At the 10, 20, and 30-day post-first fraction time points 3, 3, and 4 patients, respectively, had a FHR volume that changed by at least 20% relative to the first fraction. Research mpMRIs were successfully acquired on the MRL. The median apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) within the FHR and the volumes of FLAIR were significantly correlated when data from all patients and time points were pooled ( R =0.68, p <.001). Conclusion We report the first clinical series of HGG patients treated with radiotherapy on the MRL. The ATP workflow and treatment times were clinically acceptable, and daily online MRL imaging triggered adaptive re-planning for selected patients. Acquisition of mpMRIs was feasible on the MRL during routine treatment workflow. Prospective clinical outcomes data is anticipated from the ongoing UNITED phase 2 trial to further refine the role of MR-guided adaptive radiotherapy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".