Background: The assessment of organ motion is a crucial feature for prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Rectal spacer may represent a helpful device in order to outdistance rectal wall from clinical target, but its impact on organ motion is still a matter of debate. MRI-Linac is a new frontier in radiation oncology as it allows a superior visualization of the real-time anatomy of the patient and the current highest level of adaptive radiotherapy. Methods: We present data regarding a total of 100 fractions in 20 patients who underwent MRI-guided prostate SBRT for low-to-intermediate risk prostate cancer with or without spacer. Translational and rotational shifts were computed on the pre- and post-treatment MRI acquisitions referring to the delivery position for antero-posterior, latero-lateral and cranio-caudal direction, and assessed using the Mann-Whitney U-Test. Results: All patients were treated with a five sessions schedule (35 Gy/5fx) using MRI-Linac for a median fraction treatment time of 50 min (range, 46–65). In the entire study sample, median rotational displacement was 0.1° in cranio-caudal, − 0.002° in latero-lateral and 0.01° in antero-posterior direction; median translational shift was 0.11 mm in cranio-caudal, − 0.24 mm in latero-lateral and − 0.22 mm in antero-posterior. A significant difference between spacer and no-spacer patients in terms of rotational shifts in the antero-posterior direction (p = 0.033) was observed; also for translational shifts a positive trend was detected in antero-posterior direction (p = 0.07), although with no statistical significance. We observed statistically significant differences in the pre-treatment planning phase in favor of the spacer cohort for several rectum dose constraints: rectum V32Gy < 5% (p = 0.001), V28 Gy < 10% (p = 0.001) and V18Gy < 35% (p = 0.039). Also for bladder V35 Gy < 1 cc, the use of spacer provided a dosimetric advantage compared to the no-spacer subpopulation (p = 0.04). Furthermore, PTV V33.2Gy > 95% was higher in the spacer cohort compared to the no-spacer one (p = 0.036). Conclusion: In our experience, the application of rectal hydrogel spacer for prostate SBRT resulted in a significant impact on rotational antero-posterior shifts contributing to limit prostate intra-fraction motion. Further studies with larger sample size and longer follow-up are required to confirm this ideally favorable effect and to assess any potential impact on clinical outcomes.

Hybrid magnetic resonance (MR)-guided linear accelerators represent a new horizon in the field of radiation oncology. By harnessing the favorable combination of on-board MR-imaging with the possibility to daily recalculate the treatment plan based on real-time anatomy, the accuracy in target and organs-at-risk identification is expected to be improved, with the aim to provide the best tailored treatment. To date, two main MR-linac hybrid machines are available, Elekta Unity and Viewray MRIdian. Of note, compared to conventional linacs, these devices raise practical issues due to the positioning phase for the need to include the coil in the immobilization procedure and in order to perform the best reproducible positioning, also in light of the potentially longer treatment time. Given the relative novelty of this technology, there are few literature data regarding the procedures and the workflows for patient positioning and immobilization for MR-guided daily adaptive radiotherapy. In the present narrative review, we resume the currently available literature and provide an overview of the positioning and setup procedures for all the anatomical districts for hybrid MR-linac systems.

Objective: The main aim of the current analysis was to explore the hypothetical advantages using rectal spacer during 1.5T MR-guided and daily adapted prostate cancer stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) compared to a no-rectal spacer hydrogel cohort of patients. Methods: The SBRT-protocol consisted of a 35 Gy schedule delivered in 5 fractions. Herein, we present a dosimetric analysis between spacer and no-spacer patients. Furthermore, treatment tolerability and feasibility were preliminarily assessed according to clinicians-reported outcomes at the end of treatment and patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) in both arms. Toxicity and quality of life were assessed at baseline and after treatment using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v. 5.0, International Prostatic Symptoms Score, ICIQ-SF, IIEF-5, and EORTC-QLQ-C30 and PR-25 questionnaires. Results: 120 plans (pre- and daily adaptive SBRT planning) were analyzed in 20 patients (10 patients in spacer group and 10 patients in no-spacer group) treated using 1.5T MR-guided adaptive SBRT. Statistically significant dosimetric advantages were observed in favor of the spacer insertion, improving the planning target volume coverage in terms of V33.2Gy >95% and planning target volume 37.5 Gy <2% mainly during daily-adapted SBRT. Also, rectum V32, V28 and V18Gy and bladder V35Gy <1 cc were significantly reduced in the spacer cohort. Concerning the PROMS, all questionnaires showed no difference between the pre- and post-SBRT evaluation in both arms, excepting the physical functioning item of EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire that was declined in the no-spacer group. Conclusion: These preliminary results strongly suggest the adoption of perirectal spacer due to dosimetric advantages not only for rectal sparing but also for target coverage. Longer follow-up is required to validate the clinical impact in terms of clinicians-reported toxicity and PROMs. Advances in knowledge: This the first experience reporting preliminary data concerning the potential dosimetric impact of rectal hydrogel spacer on MR-guided SBRT for prostate cancer.

In this review we summarize the currently available evidence about the role of hybrid machines for MR-guided radiotherapy for prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy. Given the novelty of this technology, to date few data are accessible, but they all report very promising results in terms of tolerability and preliminary clinical outcomes. Most of the studies highlight the favorable impact of on-board magnetic resonance imaging as a means to improve target and organs at risk identification with a consequent advantage in terms of dosimetric results, which is expected to relate to a more favorable toxicity pattern. Still, the longer treatment time per session may potentially affect the patient’s compliance to the treatment, although first quality of life assessment studies have reported substantial tolerability and no major impact on quality of life. Finally, in this review we hypothesize some future scenarios of further investigation, based on the possibility to explore the superior anatomy visualization and the role of daily adapted treatments provided by hybrid MR-Linacs.