Single institution experience of MRI-guided radiotherapy for thoracic tumors and clinical characteristics impacting treatment duty cycle

Introduction: MRI-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) allows for direct motion management and real-time radiation treatment plan adaptation. We report our institutional experience using low strength 0.35T MRgRT for thoracic malignancies, and evaluate changes in treatment duty cycle between first and final MRgRT fractions.

Methods: All patients with intrathoracic tumors treated with MRgRT were included. The primary reason for MRgRT (adjacent organ at risk [OAR] vs. motion management [MM] vs. other) was recorded. Tumor location was classified as central (within 2cm of tracheobronchial tree) vs. non-central, and further classified by the Expanded HILUS grouping. Gross tumor volume (GTV) motion, planning target volume expansions, dose/fractionation, treatment plan time, and total delivery time were extracted from the treatment planning system. Treatment plan time was defined as the time for beam delivery, including multileaf collimator (MLC) motion, and gantry rotation. Treatment delivery time was defined as the time from beam on to completion of treatment, including treatment plan time and patient respiratory breath holds. Duty cycle was calculated as treatment plan time/treatment delivery time. Duty cycles were compared between first and final fraction using a two-sample t-test.

Results: Twenty-seven patients with thoracic tumors (16 non-small cell lung cancer and 11 thoracic metastases) were treated with MRgRT between 12/2021 and 06/2023. Fifteen patients received MRgRT due to OAR and 11 patients received MRgRT for motion management. 11 patients had central tumors and all were treated with MRgRT due to OAR risk. The median dose/fractionation was 50 Gy/5 fractions. For patients treated due to OAR (n=15), 80% had at least 1 adapted fraction during their course of radiotherapy. There was no plan adaptation for patients treated due to motion management (n=11). Mean GTV motion was significantly higher for patients treated due to motion management compared to OAR (16.1mm vs. 6.5mm, p=0.011). Mean duty cycle for fraction 1 was 54.2% compared to 62.1% with final fraction (p=0.004). Mean fraction 1 duty cycle was higher for patients treated due to OAR compared to patients treated for MM (61% vs. 45.0%, p=0.012).

Discussion: Duty cycle improved from first fraction to final fraction possibly due to patient familiarity with treatment. Duty cycle was improved for patients treated due to OAR risk, likely due to more central location and thus decreased target motion.