The role of motion management and position verification in lymphoma radiotherapy

In the last decades, the substantial technical progress in radiation oncology offered the opportunity for more accurate planning and delivery of treatment. At the same time, the evolution of systemic treatment and the advent of modern diagnostic tools allowed for more accurate staging and consequently a safe reduction of radiotherapy (RT) target volumes and RT doses in the treatment of lymphomas. As a result, incidental irradiation of organs at risk was reduced, with a consequent reduction of severe late toxicity in long-term lymphoma survivors. Nevertheless, these innovations warrant that professionals pay attention to concurrently ensure precise planning and dose delivery to the target volume and safe sparing of the organs at risk. In particular, target and organ motion should be carefully managed in order to prevent any compromise of treatment efficacy. Several aspects should be taken into account during the treatment pathway to minimise uncertainties and to apply a valuable motion management strategy, when needed. These include: reliable image registration between diagnostic and planning radiologic exams to facilitate the contouring process, image guidance to limit positioning uncertainties and to ensure the accuracy of dose delivery and management of lung motion through procedures of respiratory gating and breath control. In this review, we will cover the current clinical approaches to minimise these uncertainties in patients treated with modern RT techniques, with a particular focus on mediastinal lymphoma. In addition, since uncertainties have a different impact on the dose deposition of protons compared to conventional x-rays, the role of motion management and position verification in proton beam therapy (PBT) will be discussed in a separate section

Duration of androgen deprivation therapy with postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a comparison of long-course versus short-course androgen deprivation therapy in the RADICALS-HD randomised trial

Background Previous evidence supports androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with primary radiotherapy as initial treatment for intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer. However, the use and optimal duration of ADT with postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy remains uncertain. Methods RADICALS-HD was a randomised controlled trial of ADT duration within the RADICALS protocol. Here, we report on the comparison of short-course versus long-course ADT. Key eligibility criteria were indication for radiotherapy after previous radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen less than 5 ng/mL, absence of metastatic disease, and written consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to add 6 months of ADT (short-course ADT) or 24 months of ADT (long-course ADT) to radiotherapy, using subcutaneous gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogue (monthly in the short-course ADT group and 3-monthly in the long-course ADT group), daily oral bicalutamide monotherapy 150 mg, or monthly subcutaneous degarelix. Randomisation was done centrally through minimisation with a random element, stratified by Gleason score, positive margins, radiotherapy timing, planned radiotherapy schedule, and planned type of ADT, in a computerised system. The allocated treatment was not masked. The primary outcome measure was metastasis-free survival, defined as metastasis arising from prostate cancer or death from any cause. The comparison had more than 80% power with two-sided α of 5% to detect an absolute increase in 10-year metastasis-free survival from 75% to 81% (hazard ratio [HR] 0·72). Standard time-to-event analyses were used. Analyses followed intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN40814031, and ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT00541047 . Findings Between Jan 30, 2008, and July 7, 2015, 1523 patients (median age 65 years, IQR 60–69) were randomly assigned to receive short-course ADT (n=761) or long-course ADT (n=762) in addition to postoperative radiotherapy at 138 centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. With a median follow-up of 8·9 years (7·0–10·0), 313 metastasis-free survival events were reported overall (174 in the short-course ADT group and 139 in the long-course ADT group; HR 0·773 [95% CI 0·612–0·975]; p=0·029). 10-year metastasis-free survival was 71·9% (95% CI 67·6–75·7) in the short-course ADT group and 78·1% (74·2–81·5) in the long-course ADT group. Toxicity of grade 3 or higher was reported for 105 (14%) of 753 participants in the short-course ADT group and 142 (19%) of 757 participants in the long-course ADT group (p=0·025), with no treatment-related deaths. Interpretation Compared with adding 6 months of ADT, adding 24 months of ADT improved metastasis-free survival in people receiving postoperative radiotherapy. For individuals who can accept the additional duration of adverse effects, long-course ADT should be offered with postoperative radiotherapy. Funding Cancer Research UK, UK Research and Innovation (formerly Medical Research Council), and Canadian Cancer Society

The role of motion management and position verification in lymphoma radiotherapy

In the last decades, the substantial technical progress in radiation oncology offered the opportunity for more accurate planning and delivery of treatment. At the same time, the evolution of systemic treatment and the advent of modern diagnostic tools allowed for more accurate staging and consequently a safe reduction of radiotherapy (RT) target volumes and RT doses in the treatment of lymphomas. As a result, incidental irradiation of organs at risk was reduced, with a consequent reduction of severe late toxicity in long-term lymphoma survivors. Nevertheless, these innovations warrant that professionals pay attention to concurrently ensure precise planning and dose delivery to the target volume and safe sparing of the organs at risk. In particular, target and organ motion should be carefully managed in order to prevent any compromise of treatment efficacy. Several aspects should be taken into account during the treatment pathway to minimise uncertainties and to apply a valuable motion management strategy, when needed. These include: reliable image registration between diagnostic and planning radiologic exams to facilitate the contouring process, image guidance to limit positioning uncertainties and to ensure the accuracy of dose delivery and management of lung motion through procedures of respiratory gating and breath control. In this review, we will cover the current clinical approaches to minimise these uncertainties in patients treated with modern RT techniques, with a particular focus on mediastinal lymphoma. In addition, since uncertainties have a different impact on the dose deposition of protons compared to conventional x-rays, the role of motion management and position verification in proton beam therapy (PBT) will be discussed in a separate section. </jats:p