Tyagi, Neelam

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.

PurposeA magnetic resonance (MR) biologic marker (biomarker) is a measurable quantitative characteristic that is an indicator of normal biological and pathogenetic processes or a response to therapeutic intervention derived from the MR imaging process. There is significant potential for MR biomarkers to facilitate personalized approaches to cancer care through more precise disease targeting by quantifying normal versus pathologic tissue function as well as toxicity to both radiation and chemotherapy. Both of which have the potential to increase the therapeutic ratio and provide earlier, more accurate monitoring of treatment response. The ongoing integration of MR into routine clinical radiation therapy (RT) planning and the development of MR guided radiation therapy systems is providing new opportunities for MR biomarkers to personalize and improve clinical outcomes. Their appropriate use, however, must be based on knowledge of the physical origin of the biomarker signal, the relationship to the underlying biological processes, and their strengths and limitations. The purpose of this report is to provide an educational resource describing MR biomarkers, the techniques used to quantify them, their strengths and weakness within the context of their application to radiation oncology so as to ensure their appropriate use and application within this field.

The use of dedicated magnetic resonance simulation (MR‐SIM) platforms in Radiation Oncology has expanded rapidly, introducing new equipment and functionality with the overall goal of improving the accuracy of radiation treatment planning. However, this emerging technology presents a new set of challenges that need to be addressed for safe and effective MR‐SIM implementation. The major objectives of this report are to provide recommendations for commercially available MR simulators, including initial equipment selection, siting, acceptance testing, quality assurance, optimization of dedicated radiation therapy specific MR‐SIM workflows, patient‐specific considerations, safety, and staffing. Major contributions include guidance on motion and distortion management as well as MRI coil configurations to accommodate patients immobilized in the treatment position. Examples of optimized protocols and checklists for QA programs are provided. While the recommendations provided here are minimum requirements, emerging areas and unmet needs are also highlighted for future development.