PurposeTo quantify the difference in accuracy of adapt-to-position (ATP), adapt-to-rotation (ATR) and adapt-to-shape (ATS) workflows used in MRI-guided online adaptive radiotherapy for prostate... Show morePurposeTo quantify the difference in accuracy of adapt-to-position (ATP), adapt-to-rotation (ATR) and adapt-to-shape (ATS) workflows used in MRI-guided online adaptive radiotherapy for prostate carcinoma (PCa) by evaluating the margins required to accommodate intra-fraction motion of the clinical target volumes for prostate (CTVpros), prostate including seminal vesicles (CTVpros + sv) and gross tumor volume (GTV).Materials and methodsClinical delineations of the CTVpros, CTVpros + sv and GTV of 24 patients with intermediate- and high-risk PCa, treated using ATS on a 1.5 T MR-Linac, were used for analysis. Delineations were available pre- and during beam-on. To simulate ATP and ATR workflows, we automatically generated the structures associated with these workflows using rigid transformations from the planning-MRI to the daily online MRIs. Clinical GTVs were analyzed as ATR GTVs and only ATP GTVs were simulated. Planning target volumes (PTVs) were generated with isotropic margins ranging 0.0–5.0 mm. The volumetric overlap was calculated between these PTVs and their corresponding clinical delineation on the MRI acquired during beam-on and averaged over all treatment fractions.ResultsThe PTV margin required to cover > 95% of the CTVpros was equal (2.5 mm) for all workflows. For the CTVpros + sv, this margin increased to 5.0, 4.0 and 3.5 mm in the ATP, ATR and ATS workflow, respectively. GTV coverage improved from ATP to ATR for margins up to 4.0 mm.ConclusionATP, ATR and ATS workflows ensure equal coverage of the CTVpros for the current clinical margins. For the CTVpros + sv, ATS showed optimal performance. GTV coverage improves by additional adaptations to prostate rotations. Show less
