Joshua N. Freedman

Radiation therapy is a major component of cancer treatment pathways worldwide. The main aim of this treatment is to achieve tumor control through the delivery of ionizing radiation while preserving healthy tissues for minimal radiation toxicity. Because radiation therapy relies on accurate localization of the target and surrounding tissues, imaging plays a crucial role throughout the treatment chain. In the treatment planning phase, radiological images are essential for defining target volumes and organs‐at‐risk, as well as providing elemental composition (e.g., electron density) information for radiation dose calculations. At treatment, onboard imaging informs patient setup and could be used to guide radiation dose placement for sites affected by motion. Imaging is also an important tool for treatment response assessment and treatment plan adaptation. MRI, with its excellent soft tissue contrast and capacity to probe functional tissue properties, holds great untapped potential for transforming treatment paradigms in radiation therapy. The MR in Radiation Therapy ISMRM Study Group was established to provide a forum within the MR community to discuss the unmet needs and fuel opportunities for further advancement of MRI for radiation therapy applications. During the summer of 2021, the study group organized its first virtual workshop, attended by a diverse international group of clinicians, scientists, and clinical physicists, to explore our predictions for the future of MRI in radiation therapy for the next 25 years. This article reviews the main findings from the event and considers the opportunities and challenges of reaching our vision for the future in this expanding field.

MR-guided radiotherapy treatment planning utilises the high soft-tissue contrast of MRI to reduce uncertainty in delineation of the target and organs at risk. Replacing 4D-CT with MRI-derived synthetic 4D-CT would support treatment plan adaptation on hybrid MR-guided radiotherapy systems for inter- and intrafractional differences in anatomy and respiration, whilst mitigating the risk of CT to MRI registration errors. Three methods were devised to calculate synthetic 4D and midposition (time-weighted mean position of the respiratory cycle) CT from 4D-T1w and Dixon MRI. The first approach employed intensity-based segmentation of Dixon MRI for bulk-density assignment (sCT_D). The second step added spine density information using an atlas of CT and Dixon MRI (sCT_DS). The third iteration used a polynomial function relating Hounsfield units and normalised T1w image intensity to account for variable lung density (sCT_DSL). Motion information in 4D-T1w MRI was applied to generate synthetic CT in midposition and in twenty respiratory phases. For six lung cancer patients, synthetic 4D-CT was validated against 4D-CT in midposition by comparison of Hounsfield units and dose-volume metrics. Dosimetric differences found by comparing sCT_D,DS,DSL and CT were evaluated using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test (p = 0.05). Compared to sCT_D and sCT_DS, planning on sCT_DSL significantly reduced absolute dosimetric differences in the planning target volume metrics to less than 98 cGy (1.7% of the prescribed dose) on average. When comparing sCT_DSL and CT, average radiodensity differences were within 97 Hounsfield units and dosimetric differences were significant only for the planning target volume D99% metric. All methods produced clinically acceptable results for the organs at risk in accordance with the UK SABR consensus guidelines and the LungTech EORTC phase II trial. The overall good agreement between sCT_DSL and CT demonstrates the feasibility of employing synthetic 4D-CT for plan adaptation on hybrid MR-guided radiotherapy systems.