Practical robustness evaluation in radiotherapy - A photon and proton-proof alternative to PTV-based plan evaluation

Background and purpose: A planning target volume (PTV) in photon treatments aims to ensure that the clinical target volume (CTV) receives adequate dose despite treatment uncertainties. The underlying static dose cloud approximation (the assumption that the dose distribution is invariant to errors) is problematic in intensity modulated proton treatments where range errors should be taken into account as well. The purpose of this work is to introduce a robustness evaluation method that is applicable to photon and proton treatments and is consistent with (historic) PTV-based treatment plan evaluations. Materials and methods: The limitation of the static dose cloud approximation was solved in a multi-scenario simulation by explicitly calculating doses for various treatment scenarios that describe possible errors in the treatment course. Setup errors were the same as the CTV-PTV margin and the underlying theory of 3D probability density distributions was extended to 4D to include range errors, maintaining a 90% confidence level. Scenario dose distributions were reduced to voxel-wise minimum and maximum dose distributions; the first to evaluate CTV coverage and the second for hot spots. Acceptance criteria for CTV D98 and D2 were calibrated against PTV-based criteria from historic photon treatment plans. Results: CTV D98 in worst case scenario dose and voxel-wise minimum dose showed a very strong correlation with scenario average D98 (R-2 > 0.99). The voxel-wise minimum dose visualised CTV dose conformity and coverage in 3D in agreement with PTV-based evaluation in photon therapy. Criteria for CTV D98 and D2 of the voxel-wise minimum and maximum dose showed very strong correlations to PTV D98 and D2 (R-2 > 0.99) and on average needed corrections of -0.9% and +2.3%, respectively. Conclusions: A practical approach to robustness evaluation was provided and clinically implemented for PTV-less photon and proton treatment planning, consistent with PTV evaluations but without its static dose cloud approximation. (C) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V

Individualized early death and long-term survival prediction after stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases of non-small cell lung cancer:Two externally validated nomograms

Introduction Commonly used clinical models for survival prediction after stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for brain metastases (BMs) are limited by the lack of individual risk scores and disproportionate prognostic groups. In this study, two nomograms were developed to overcome these limitations. Methods 495 patients with BMs of NSCLC treated with SRS for a limited number of BMs in four Dutch radiation oncology centers were identified and divided in a training cohort (n = 214, patients treated in one hospital) and an external validation cohort n = 281, patients treated in three other hospitals). Using the training cohort, nomograms were developed for prediction of early death (<3 months) and long-term survival (>12 months) with prognostic factors for survival. Accuracy of prediction was defined as the area under the curve (AUC) by receiver operating characteristics analysis for prediction of early death and long term survival. The accuracy of the nomograms was also tested in the external validation cohort. Results Prognostic factors for survival were: WHO performance status, presence of extracranial metastases, age, GTV largest BM, and gender. Number of brain metastases and primary tumor control were not prognostic factors for survival. In the external validation cohort, the nomogram predicted early death statistically significantly better (p < 0.05) than the unfavorable groups of the RPA, DS-GPA, GGS, SIR, and Rades 2015 (AUC = 0.70 versus range AUCs = 0.51–0.60 respectively). With an AUC of 0.67, the other nomogram predicted 1 year survival statistically significantly better (p < 0.05) than the favorable groups of four models (range AUCs = 0.57–0.61), except for the SIR (AUC = 0.64, p = 0.34). The models are available on www.predictcancer.org. Conclusion The nomograms predicted early death and long-term survival more accurately than commonly used prognostic scores after SRS for a limited number of BMs of NSCLC. Moreover these nomograms enable individualized probability assessment and are easy into use in routine clinical practice

Whole brain radiotherapy versus stereotactic radiosurgery for 4-10 brain metastases:a phase III randomised multicentre trial

Background: Maintenance of quality of life is the primary goal during treatment of brain metastases (BM). This is a protocol of an ongoing phase III randomised multicentre study. This study aims to determine the exact additional palliative value of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) over whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) in patients with 4-10 BM. Methods: The study will include patients with 4-10 BM from solid primary tumours diagnosed on a high-resolution contrast-enhanced MRI scan with a maximum lesional diameter of 2.5 cm in any direction and a maximum cumulative lesional volume of 30 cm3. Patients will be randomised between WBRT in five fractions of 4 Gy to a total dose of 20 Gy (standard arm) and single dose SRS to the BMs (study arm) in the range of 15-24 Gy. The largest BM or a localisation in the brainstem will determine the prescribed SRS dose. The primary endpoint is difference in quality of life (EQ5D EUROQOL score) at 3 months after radiotherapy with regard to baseline. Secondary endpoints are difference in quality of life (EQ5D EUROQOL questionnaire) at 6, 9 and 12 months after radiotherapy with regard to baseline. Other secondary endpoints are at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after radiotherapy survival, Karnofsky ≥ 70, WHO performance status, steroid use (mg), toxicity according to CTCAE V4.0 including hair loss, fatigue, brain salvage during follow-up, type of salvage, time to salvage after randomisation and Barthel index. Facultative secondary endpoints are neurocognition with the Hopkins verbal learning test revised, quality of life EORTC QLQ-C30, quality of life EORTC BN20 brain module and fatigue scale EORTC QLQ-FA13. Discussion: Worldwide, most patients with more than 4 BM will be treated with WBRT. Considering the potential advantages of SRS over WBRT, i.e. limiting radiation doses to uninvolved brain and a high rate of local tumour control by just a single treatment with fewer side effects, such as hair loss and fatigue, compared to WBRT, SRS might be a suitable alternative for patients with 4-10 BM. Trial registration: Trial registration number: NCT02353000 , trial registration date 15th January 2015, open for accrual 1st July 2016, nine patients were enrolled in this trial on 14th April 2017

Increasing the Therapeutic Ratio of Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy by Individualized Isotoxic Dose Prescription

To obtain a favorable tradeoff between treatment benefits and morbidity ("therapeutic ratio"), radiotherapy (RT) dose is prescribed according to the tumor volume, with the goal of controlling the disease while respecting normal tissue tolerance levels. We propose a new paradigm for tumor dose prescription in stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) based on organ-at-risk (OAR) tolerance levels called isotoxic dose prescription (IDP), which is derived from experiences and limitations of conventionally fractionated radiotherapy. With IDP, the radiation dose is prescribed based on the predefined level of normal tissue complication probability of a nearby dose-limiting OAR at a prespecified dose-volume constraint. Simultaneously, the prescribed total tumor dose (TTD) is maximized to the technically highest achievable level in order to increase the local tumor control probability (TCP). IDP is especially relevant for tumors located at eloquent locations or for large tumors in which severe toxicity has been described. IDP will result in a lower RT dose or a treatment scheduled with more fractions if the OAR tolerance level is exceeded, and potential dose escalation occurs when the OAR tolerance level allows it and when it is expected to be beneficial (if TCP &lt;90%). For patients with small tumors at noneloquent sites, the current SABR dose prescription already results in high rates of local control at low toxicity rates. In this review, the concept of IDP is described in the context of SABR

Early and late contrast enhancing lesions after photon radiotherapy for IDH mutated grade 2 diffuse glioma

Objective: The interpretation of new enhancing lesions after radiotherapy for diffuse glioma remains a clinical challenge. We sought to characterize and classify new contrast enhancing lesions in a historical multicenter cohort of patients with IDH mutated grade 2 diffuse glioma treated with photon therapy. Methods: We reviewed all follow-up MRI's of all patients treated with radiotherapy for histologically confirmed, IDH mutated diffuse grade 2 glioma between 1–1-2007 and 31–12-2018 in two tertiary referral centers. Disease progression (PD) was defined in accordance with the RANO criteria for progressive disease in low grade glioma. Pseudoprogression (psPD) was defined as any transient contrast-enhancing lesion between the end of radiotherapy and PD, or any new contrast-enhancing lesion that remained stable over a period of 12 months in patients who did not exhibit PD. Results: A total of 860 MRI's of 106 patients were reviewed. psPD was identified in 24 patients (23%) on 76 MRI's. The cumulative incidence of psPD was 13% at 1 year, 22% at 5 years, and 28% at 10 years. The mean of the observed maximal volume of psPD was 2.4 cc. The median Dmin in psPD lesions was 50.1 Gy. The presence of an 1p/19q codeletion was associated with an increased risk of psPD (subhazard ratio 2.34, p = 0.048). psPD was asymptomatic in 83% of patients. Conclusion: The cumulative incidence of psPD in grade 2 diffuse glioma increases over time. Consensus regarding event definition and statistical analysis is needed for comparisons between series investigating psPD

Use of Systemic Therapy Concurrent With Cranial Radiotherapy for Cerebral Metastases of Solid Tumors

The incidence of brain metastases of solid tumors is increasing. Local treatment of brain metastases is generally straightforward: cranial radiotherapy (e.g., whole‐brain radiotherapy or stereotactic radiosurgery) or resection when feasible. However, treatment becomes more complex when brain metastases occur while other metastases, outside of the central nervous system, are being controlled with systemic therapy (chemotherapeutics, molecular targeted agents, or monoclonal antibodies). It is known that some anticancer agents can increase the risk for neurotoxicity when used concurrently with radiotherapy. Increased neurotoxicity decreases quality of life, which is undesirable in this predominantly palliative patient group. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to identify the compounds that should be temporarily discontinued when cranial radiotherapy is needed. This review summarizes the (neuro)toxicity data for combining systemic therapy (chemotherapeutics, molecular targeted agents, or monoclonal antibodies) with concurrent radiotherapy of brain metastases. Because only a limited amount of high‐level data has been published, a risk assessment of each agent was done, taking into account the characteristics of each compound (e.g., lipophilicity) and the microenvironment of brain metastasis. The available trials suggest that only gemcitabine, erlotinib, and vemurafenib induce significant neurotoxicity when used concurrently with cranial radiotherapy. We conclude that for most systemic therapies, the currently available literature does not show an increase in neurotoxicity when these therapies are used concurrently with cranial radiotherapy. However, further studies are needed to confirm safety because there is no high‐level evidence to permit definitive conclusions. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE. The treatment of symptomatic brain metastases diagnosed while patients are receiving systemic therapy continues to pose a dilemma to clinicians. Will concurrent treatment with cranial radiotherapy and systemic therapy (chemotherapeutics, molecular targeted agents, and monoclonal antibodies), used to control intra‐ and extracranial tumor load, increase the risk for neurotoxicity? This review addresses this clinically relevant question and evaluates the toxicity of combining systemic therapies with cranial radiotherapy, based on currently available literature, in order to determine the need to and interval to interrupt systemic treatment