MRI-guided radiotherapy systems have the potential to bring two important concepts in modern radiotherapy together: adaptive radiotherapy and biological targeting. Based on frequent anatomical and functional imaging, monitoring the changes that occur in volume, shape as well as biological characteristics, a treatment plan can be updated regularly to accommodate the observed treatment response. For this purpose, quantitative imaging biomarkers need to be identified that show changes early during treatment and predict treatment outcome. This review provides an overview of the current evidence on quantitative MRI measurements during radiotherapy and their potential as an imaging biomarker on MRI-guided radiotherapy systems.

Glioblastoma is a high-grade aggressive neoplasm characterised by significant intra-tumoral spatial heterogeneity. Personalising therapy for this tumour requires non-invasive tools to visualise its heterogeneity to monitor treatment response on a regional level. To date, efforts to characterise glioblastoma’s imaging features and heterogeneity have focussed on individual imaging biomarkers, or high-throughput radiomic approaches that consider a vast number of imaging variables across the tumour as a whole. Habitat imaging is a novel approach to cancer imaging that identifies tumour regions or ‘habitats’ based on shared imaging characteristics, usually defined using multiple imaging biomarkers. Habitat imaging reflects the evolution of imaging biomarkers and offers spatially preserved assessment of tumour physiological processes such perfusion and cellularity. This allows for regional assessment of treatment response to facilitate personalised therapy. In this review, we explore different methodologies to derive imaging habitats in glioblastoma, strategies to overcome its technical challenges, contrast experiences to other cancers, and describe potential clinical applications.

Radiation therapy is a major component of cancer treatment pathways worldwide. The main aim of this treatment is to achieve tumor control through the delivery of ionizing radiation while preserving healthy tissues for minimal radiation toxicity. Because radiation therapy relies on accurate localization of the target and surrounding tissues, imaging plays a crucial role throughout the treatment chain. In the treatment planning phase, radiological images are essential for defining target volumes and organs‐at‐risk, as well as providing elemental composition (e.g., electron density) information for radiation dose calculations. At treatment, onboard imaging informs patient setup and could be used to guide radiation dose placement for sites affected by motion. Imaging is also an important tool for treatment response assessment and treatment plan adaptation. MRI, with its excellent soft tissue contrast and capacity to probe functional tissue properties, holds great untapped potential for transforming treatment paradigms in radiation therapy. The MR in Radiation Therapy ISMRM Study Group was established to provide a forum within the MR community to discuss the unmet needs and fuel opportunities for further advancement of MRI for radiation therapy applications. During the summer of 2021, the study group organized its first virtual workshop, attended by a diverse international group of clinicians, scientists, and clinical physicists, to explore our predictions for the future of MRI in radiation therapy for the next 25 years. This article reviews the main findings from the event and considers the opportunities and challenges of reaching our vision for the future in this expanding field.

A wide variation of MRI systems is a challenge in multicenter imaging biomarker studies as it adds variation in quantitative MRI values. The aim of this study was to design and test a quality assurance (QA) framework based on phantom measurements, for the quantitative MRI protocols of a multicenter imaging biomarker trial of locally advanced cervical cancer. Fifteen institutes participated (five 1.5 T and ten 3 T scanners). Each institute optimized protocols for T2, diffusion-weighted imaging, T1, and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE-)MRI according to system possibilities, institutional preferences and study-specific constraints. Calibration phantoms with known values were used for validation. Benchmark protocols, similar on all systems, were used to investigate whether differences resulted from variations in institutional protocols or from system variations. Bias, repeatability (%RC), and reproducibility (%RDC) were determined. Ratios were used for T2 and T1 values. The institutional protocols showed a range in bias of 0.88-0.98 for T2 (median %RC = 1%; %RDC = 12%), -0.007 to 0.029 × 10^-3 mm²/s for the apparent diffusion coefficient (median %RC = 3%; %RDC = 18%), and 0.39-1.29 for T1 (median %RC = 1%; %RDC = 33%). For DCE a nonlinear vendor-specific relation was observed between measured and true concentrations with magnitude data, whereas the relation was linear when phase data was used. We designed a QA framework for quantitative MRI protocols and demonstrated for a multicenter trial for cervical cancer that measurement of consistent T2 and apparent diffusion coefficient values is feasible despite protocol differences. For DCE-MRI and T1 mapping with the variable flip angle method, this was more challenging.