Prostate diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in MR-guided radiotherapy: Reproducibility assessment on 1.5 T MR-Linac and 1.5 T MR-simulator.

PURPOSE: Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) holds promise for image-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) in prostate cancer. However, challenges persist due to image distortion, artifacts, and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) reproducibility issues. This study aimed to assess DWI image quality and ADC reproducibility on both a 1.5 T MR-simulator and a 1.5 T MR-Linac, employing measurements from both an ACR MRI phantom and prostate cancer patients undergoing MRgRT.

METHODS: DW-MRI scans were conducted on 19 patients (mean age = 69 ± 8 years, with 23 MR-visible intra-prostatic lesions) and an ACR MRI phantom using a 1.5 T MR-simulator (b-values = 0, 800, 1400s/mm2 ) and a 1.5 T MR-Linac (b-values = 50, 500, 800 s/mm2 ). ADC homogeneity in the phantom was evaluated via 1D profile flatness (FL) in three directions. Image quality was assessed through qualitative 5-point Likert scale ratings and quantitative ADC and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) measurements. Intra-observer reproducibility of image quality scores was evaluated using ICC(1, 2). Geometric distortion was measured by comparing landmark sizes on the ACR phantom against the ground truth. Mean ADC and reproducibility were assessed using Bland-Altman plots.

RESULTS: Both MR-simulator and MR-Linac demonstrated high ADC homogeneity (FL > 87.5% - MR-simulator: 97.23 ± 0.62%, MR-Linac: 94.75 ± 0.62%, p < 0.05) in the phantom. Image quality scores revealed acceptable ratings (≥3) for capsule demarcation, image artifacts, and geometric distortion in patients. However, intra-prostatic lesions were barely discernible in b800 images for both MR-simulator (average score = 2.37 ± 1.33) and MR-Linac (average score = 2.16 ± 1.28). While MR-Linac DWI scans exhibited significantly more severe geometric distortion than MR-simulator scans (p < 0.01), most phantom measurements fell within the image in-plane resolution of 3 mm. Significant differences were noted in MR-simulator ADC (CTV: 1.20 ± 0.14 × 10-3  mm2 /s (MR-simulator) vs 1.06 ± 0.10 × 10-3 mm2 /s (MR-Linac); GTV: 1.05 ± 0.21 × 10-3  mm2 /s vs 0.91 ± 0.16 × 10 mm2 /s, all p < 0.05), with a small non-zero bias observed in the Bland-Altman analysis (CTV: 12.3%; GTV: 14.5%).

CONCLUSION: The significantly larger MR-simulator ADC and the small non-zero bias hint at potential systematic differences in ADC values acquired from an MR-simulator and an MR-Linac, both at 1.5 T. Although acceptable ADC homogeneity was noted, caution is warranted in interpreting MR-Linac DWI images due to occasional severe artifacts. Further studies are essential to validate DWI and ADC as reliable imaging markers in prostate cancer MRgRT.