Pelc, Norbert J.

The past decade has seen the increasing integration of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging into radiation therapy (RT). This growth can be contributed to multiple factors, including hardware and software advances that have allowed the acquisition of high‐resolution volumetric data of RT patients in their treatment position (also known as MR simulation) and the development of methods to image and quantify tissue function and response to therapy. More recently, the advent of MR‐guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) ‐ achieved through the integration of MR imaging systems and linear accelerators ‐ has further accelerated this trend. As MR imaging in RT techniques and technologies, such as MRgRT, gain regulatory approval worldwide, these systems will begin to propagate beyond tertiary care academic medical centers and into more community‐based health systems and hospitals, creating new opportunities to provide advanced treatment options to a broader patient population. Accompanying these opportunities are unique challenges related to their adaptation, adoption, and use including modification of hardware and software to meet the unique and distinct demands of MR imaging in RT, the need for standardization of imaging techniques and protocols, education of the broader RT community (particularly in regards to MR safety) as well as the need to continue and support research, and development in this space. In response to this, an ad hoc committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) was formed to identify the unmet needs, roadblocks, and opportunities within this space. The purpose of this document is to report on the major findings and recommendations identified. Importantly, the provided recommendations represent the consensus opinions of the committee’s membership, which were submitted in the committee's report to the AAPM Board of Directors. In addition, AAPM ad hoc committee reports differ from AAPM task group reports in that ad hoc committee reports are neither reviewed nor ultimately approved by the committee’s parent groups, including at the council and executive committee level. Thus, the recommendations given in this summary should not be construed as being endorsed by or official recommendations from the AAPM.

In x‐ray computed tomography (CT), materials with different elemental compositions can have identical CT number values, depending on the mass density of each material and the energy of the detected x‐ray beam. Differentiating and classifying different tissue types and contrast agents can thus be extremely challenging. In multienergy CT, one or more additional attenuation measurements are obtained at a second, third or more energy. This allows the differentiation of at least two materials. Commercial dual‐energy CT systems (only two energy measurements) are now available either using sequential acquisitions of low‐ and high‐tube potential scans, fast tube‐potential switching, beam filtration combined with spiral scanning, dual‐source, or dual‐layer detector approaches. The use of energy‐resolving, photon‐counting detectors is now being evaluated on research systems. Irrespective of the technological approach to data acquisition, all commercial multienergy CT systems circa 2020 provide dual‐energy data. Material decomposition algorithms are then used to identify specific materials according to their effective atomic number and/or to quantitate mass density. These algorithms are applied to either projection or image data. Since 2006, a number of clinical applications have been developed for commercial release, including those that automatically (a) remove the calcium signal from bony anatomy and/or calcified plaque; (b) create iodine concentration maps from contrast‐enhanced CT data and/or quantify absolute iodine concentration; (c) create virtual non‐contrast‐enhanced images from contrast‐enhanced scans; (d) identify perfused blood volume in lung parenchyma or the myocardium; and (e) characterize materials according to their elemental compositions, which can allow in vivo differentiation between uric acid and non‐uric acid urinary stones or uric acid (gout) or non‐uric acid (calcium pyrophosphate) deposits in articulating joints and surrounding tissues. In this report, the underlying physical principles of multienergy CT are reviewed and each of the current technical approaches are described. In addition, current and evolving clinical applications are introduced. Finally, the impact of multienergy CT technology on patient radiation dose is summarized.