Multi-institutional comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy vs. intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head-and-neck cancer:a planning study

<p>Background: Compared to static beam Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT), the main advantage of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) is a shortened delivery time, which leads to improved patient comfort and possibly smaller intra-fraction movements. This study aims at a treatment planner-independent comparison of radiotherapy treatment planning of IMRT and VMAT for head-and-neck cancer performed by several institutes and based on the same CT- and contouring data.</p><p>Methods: Five institutes generated IMRT and VMAT plans for five oropharyngeal cancer patients using either Pinnacle(3) or Oncentra Masterplan to be delivered on Elekta linear accelerators.</p><p>Results: Comparison of VMAT and IMRT plans within the same patient and institute showed significantly better sparing for almost all OARs with VMAT. The average mean dose to the parotid glands and oral cavity was reduced from 27.2 Gy and 39.4 Gy for IMRT to 25.0 Gy and 36.7 Gy for VMAT, respectively. The dose conformity at 95% of the prescribed dose for PTVboost and PTVtotal was 1.45 and 1.62 for IMRT and 1.37 and 1.50 for VMAT, respectively. The average effective delivery time was reduced from 13: 15 min for IMRT to 5: 54 min for VMAT.</p><p>Conclusions: Independently of institution-specific optimization strategies, the quality of the VMAT plans including double arcs was superior to step-and-shoot IMRT plans including 5-9 beam ports, while the effective treatment delivery time was shortened by similar to 50% with VMAT.</p>

Stereotactic body radiation therapy with optional focal lesion ablative microboost in prostate cancer : Topical review and multicenter consensus

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer (PCa) is gaining interest by the recent publication of the first phase III trials on prostate SBRT and the promising results of many other phase II trials. Before long term results became available, the major concern for implementing SBRT in PCa in daily clinical practice was the potential risk of late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. A number of recently published trials, including late outcome and toxicity data, contributed to the growing evidence for implementation of SBRT for PCa in daily clinical practice. However, there exists substantial variability in delivering SBRT for PCa. The aim of this topical review is to present a number of prospective trials and retrospective analyses of SBRT in the treatment of PCa. We focus on the treatment strategies and techniques used in these trials. In addition, recent literature on a simultaneous integrated boost to the tumor lesion, which could create an additional value in the SBRT treatment of PCa, was described. Furthermore, we discuss the multicenter consensus of the FLAME consortium on SBRT for PCa with a focal boost to the macroscopic intraprostatic tumor nodule(s)

High incidence of implantable cardioverter defibrillator malfunctions during radiation therapy: neutrons as a probable cause of soft errors

Item does not contain fulltextAIMS: To investigate the behaviour of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) function during actual radiotherapy sessions. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifteen patients with an ICD underwent 17 radiation treatments for cancer [cumulative dose to the tumour was between 16 Gray (Gy) and 70 Gy; photon beams with maximum energies between 6 megaelectronvolt (MeV) and 18 MeV were employed]. During every session, the ICD was programmed to a monitoring mode to prevent inappropriate therapy delivery. Afterwards, the ICDs were interrogated to ensure proper function. Calculated radiation dose at the ICD site was /=10 MeV, and boron-10 which is present in the integrated circuit

Optimal(68)Ga-PSMA and(18)F-PSMA PET window levelling for gross tumour volume delineation in primary prostate cancer

PURPOSE: This study proposes optimal tracer-specific threshold-based window levels for PSMA PET-based intraprostatic gross tumour volume (GTV) contouring to reduce interobserver delineation variability. METHODS: Nine 68Ga-PSMA-11 and nine 18F-PSMA-1007 PET scans including GTV delineations of four expert teams (GTVmanual) and a majority-voted GTV (GTVmajority) were assessed with respect to a registered histopathological GTV (GTVhisto) as the gold standard reference. The standard uptake values (SUVs) per voxel were converted to a percentage (SUV%) relative to the SUVmax. The statistically optimised SUV% threshold (SOST) was defined as those that maximises accuracy for threshold-based contouring. A leave-one-out cross-validation receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to determine the SOST for each tracer. The SOST analysis was performed twice, first using the GTVhisto contour as training structure (GTVSOST-H) and second using the GTVmajority contour as training structure (GTVSOST-MA) to correct for any limited misregistration. The accuracy of both GTVSOST-H and GTVSOST-MA was calculated relative to GTVhisto in the 'leave-one-out' patient of each fold and compared with the accuracy of GTVmanual. RESULTS: ROC curve analysis for 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET revealed a median threshold of 25 SUV% (range, 22-27 SUV%) and 41 SUV% (40-43 SUV%) for GTVSOST-H and GTVSOST-MA, respectively. For 18F-PSMA-1007 PET, a median threshold of 42 SUV% (39-45 SUV%) for GTVSOST-H and 44 SUV% (42-45 SUV%) for GTVSOST-MA was found. A significant pairwise difference was observed when comparing the accuracy of the GTVSOST-H contours with the median accuracy of the GTVmanual contours (median, - 2.5%; IQR, - 26.5-0.2%; p = 0.020), whereas no significant pairwise difference was found for the GTVSOST-MA contours (median, - 0.3%; IQR, - 4.4-0.6%; p = 0.199). CONCLUSIONS: Threshold-based contouring using GTVmajority-trained SOSTs achieves an accuracy comparable with manual contours in delineating GTVhisto. The median SOSTs of 41 SUV% for 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET and 44 SUV% for 18F-PSMA-1007 PET form a base for tracer-specific window levelling. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov ; NCT03327675; 31-10-2017.status: publishe

Primary endpoint analysis of the multicentre phase II hypo-FLAME trial for intermediate and high risk prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Local recurrences after radiotherapy for prostate cancer (PCa) often originate at the location of the macroscopic tumour(s). Since PCa cells are known to be sensitive to high fraction doses, hypofractionated whole gland stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in conjunction with a simultaneous ablative microboost to the macroscopic tumour(s) within the prostate could be a way to reduce the risk of local failure. We investigated the safety of this treatment strategy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with intermediate or high risk PCa were enrolled in a prospective phase II trial, called hypo-FLAME. All patients were treated with extreme hypofractionated doses of 35 Gy in 5 weekly fractions to the whole prostate gland with an integrated boost up to 50 Gy to the multiparametric (mp) MRI-defined tumour(s). Treatment-related toxicity was measured using the CTCAE v4.0. The primary endpoint of the trial was treatment-related acute toxicity. RESULTS: Between April 2016 and December 2018, 100 men were treated in 4 academic centres. All patients were followed up for a minimum of 6 months. The median mean dose delivered to the visible tumour nodule(s) on mpMRI was 44.7 Gy in this trial. No grade ≥3 acute genitourinary (GU) or gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity was observed. Furthermore, 90 days after start of treatment, the cumulative acute grade 2 GU and GI toxicity rates were 34.0% and 5.0%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Simultaneous focal boosting to the macroscopic tumour(s) in addition to whole gland prostate SBRT is associated with acceptable acute GU and GI toxicity.status: publishe

Knowledge-Based Assessment of Focal Dose Escalation Treatment Plans in Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE: In a randomized focal dose escalation radiation therapy trial for prostate cancer (FLAME), up to 95 Gy was prescribed to the tumor in the dose-escalated arm, with 77 Gy to the entire prostate in both arms. As dose constraints to organs at risk had priority over dose escalation and suboptimal planning could occur, we investigated how well the dose to the tumor was boosted. We developed an anatomy-based prediction model to identify plans with suboptimal tumor dose and performed replanning to validate our model. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We derived dose-volume parameters from planned dose distributions of 539 FLAME trial patients in 4 institutions and compared them between both arms. In the dose-escalated arm, we determined overlap volume histograms and derived features representing patient anatomy. We predicted tumor D98% with a linear regression on anatomic features and performed replanning on 21 plans. RESULTS: In the dose-escalated arm, the median tumor D50% and D98% were 93.0 and 84.7 Gy, and 99% of the tumors had a dose escalation greater than 82.4 Gy (107% of 77 Gy). In both arms organs at risk constraints were met. Five out of 73 anatomic features were found to be predictive for tumor D98%. Median predicted tumor D98% was 4.4 Gy higher than planned D98%. Upon replanning, median tumor D98% increased by 3.0 Gy. A strong correlation between predicted increase in D98% and realized increase upon replanning was found (ρ = 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: Focal dose escalation in prostate cancer was feasible with a dose escalation to 99% of the tumors. Replanning resulted in an increased tumor dose that correlated well with the prediction model. The model was able to identify tumors on which a higher boost dose could be planned. The model has potential as a quality assessment tool in focal dose escalated treatment plans.status: publishe