Defining oligometastatic disease from a radiation oncology perspective : an ESTRO-ASTRO consensus document

Background: Recognizing the rapidly increasing interest and evidence in using metastasis-directed radiotherapy (MDRT) for oligometastatic disease (OMD), ESTRO and ASTRO convened a committee to establish consensus regarding definitions of OMD and define gaps in current evidence. Methods: A systematic literature review focused on curative intent MDRT was performed in Medline, Embase and Cochrane. Subsequent consensus opinion, using a Delphi process, highlighted the current state of evidence and the limitations in the available literature. Results: Available evidence regarding the use of MDRT for OMD mostly derives from retrospective, single-centre series, with significant heterogeneity in patient inclusion criteria, definition of OMD, and outcomes reported. Consensus was reached that OMD is largely independent of primary tumour, metastatic location and the presence or length of a disease-free interval, supporting both synchronous and metachronous OMD. In the absence of clinical data supporting a maximum number of metastases and organs to define OMD, and of validated molecular biomarkers, consensus supported the ability to deliver safe and clinically meaningful radiotherapy with curative intent to all metastatic sites as a minimum requirement for defining OMD in the context of radiotherapy. Systemic therapy induced OMD was identified as a distinct state of OMD. High-resolution imaging to assess and confirm OMD is crucial, including brain imaging when indicated. Minimum common endpoints such as progression-free and overall survival, local control, toxicity and quality-of-life should be reported; uncommon endpoints as deferral of systemic therapy and cost were endorsed. Conclusion: While significant heterogeneity exists in the current OMD definitions in the literature, consensus was reached on multiple key questions. Based on available data, OMD can to date be defined as 1–5 metastatic lesions, a controlled primary tumor being optional, but where all metastatic sites must be safely treatable. Consistent definitions and reporting are warranted and encouraged in ongoing trials and reports generating further evidence to optimize patient benefits

Re-irradiation in clinical practice:Results of an international patterns of care survey within the framework of the ESTRO-EORTC E²-RADIatE platform

Background: Re-irradiation is an increasingly utilized treatment for recurrent, metastatic or new malignancies after previous radiotherapy. It is unclear how re-irradiation is applied in clinical practice. We aimed to investigate the patterns of care of re-irradiation internationally. Material/Methods: A cross-sectional survey conducted between March and September 2022. The survey was structured into six sections, each corresponding to a specific anatomical region. Participants were instructed to complete the sections of their clinical expertise. A total of 15 multiple-choice questions were included in each section, addressing various aspects of the re-irradiation process. The online survey targeted radiation and clinical oncologists and was endorsed by the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC).Results: 371 physicians from 55 countries across six continents participated. Participants had a median professional experience of 16 years, and the majority (60%) were affiliated with an academic hospital. The brain region was the most common site for re-irradiation (77%), followed by the pelvis (65%) and head and neck (63%). Prolonging local control was the most common goal (90–96% across anatomical regions). The most common minimum interval between previous radiotherapy and re-irradiation was 6–12 months (45–55%). Persistent grade 3 or greater radiation-induced toxicity (77–80%) was the leading contraindication. Variability in organs at risk dose constraints for re-irradiation was observed. Advanced imaging modalities and conformal radiotherapy techniques were predominantly used. A scarcity of institutional guidelines for re-irradiation was reported (16–19%). Participants from European centers more frequently applied thoracic and abdominal re-irradiation. Indications did not differ between academic and non-academic hospitals. Conclusion: This study highlights the heterogeneity in re-irradiation practices across anatomical regions and emphasizes the need for high-quality evidence from prospective studies to guide treatment decisions and derive safe cumulative dose constraints.</p

Current practice in proton therapy delivery in adult cancer patients across Europe

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Major differences exist among proton therapy (PT) centres regarding PT delivery in adult cancer patient. To obtain insight into current practice in Europe, we performed a survey among European PT centres. MATERIALS AND METHODS We designed electronic questionnaires for eight tumour sites, focusing on four main topics: 1) indications and patient selection methods; 2) reimbursement; 3) on-going or planned studies, 4) annual number of patients treated with PT. RESULTS Of 22 centres, 19 (86%) responded. In total, 4233 adult patients are currently treated across Europe annually, of which 46% consists of patients with central nervous system tumours (CNS), 15% head and neck cancer (HNC), 15% prostate, 9% breast, 5% lung, 5% gastrointestinal, 4% lymphoma, 0.3% gynaecological cancers. CNS are treated in all participating centres (n = 19) using PT, HNC in 16 centres, lymphoma in 10 centres, gastrointestinal in 10 centres, breast in 7 centres, prostate in 6 centres, lung in 6 centres, and gynaecological cancers in 3 centres. Reimbursement is provided by national health care systems for the majority of commonly treated tumour sites. Approximately 74% of centres enrol patients for prospective data registration programs. Phase II-III trials are less frequent, due to reimbursement and funding problems. Reasons for not treating certain tumour types with PT are lack of evidence (30%), reimbursement issues (29%) and/or technical limitations (20%). CONCLUSION Across European PT centres, CNS tumours and HNC are the most frequently treated tumour types. Most centres use indication protocols. Lack of evidence for PT and reimbursement issues are the most reported reasons for not treating specific tumour types with PT

Más profundo que la luz

85 pagesPeer Reviewe

Simulated multileaf collimator tracking for stereotactic liver radiotherapy guided by kilovoltage intrafraction monitoring: Dosimetric gain and target overdose trends

Purpose: To investigate the potential benefit of multileaf collimator (MLC) tracking guided by kilovoltage intrafraction monitoring (KIM) during stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in the liver, and to understand trends of target overdose with MLC tracking. Methods: Six liver SBRT patients with 2-3 implanted gold markers received SBRT delivered with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in three fractions using daily cone-beam CT setup. The CTV-to-PTV margins were 5 mm in the axial plane and 10 mm in the cranio-caudal directions, and the plans were designed to give minimum target doses of 95% (CTV) and 67% (PTV). The three-dimensional marker trajectory estimated by post-treatment analysis of kV fluoroscopy images acquired throughout treatment delivery was assumed to represent the tumor motion. MLC tracking guided by real-time KIM was simulated. The reduction in CTV D95 (minimum dose to 95% of the clinical target volume) relative to the planned D95 (ΔD95) was compared between actual non-tracking and simulated MLC tracking treatments. Results: MLC tracking maintained a high CTV dose coverage for all 18 fractions with ΔD95 (mean: 0.2 percentage points (pp), range: -1.7 to 1.9 pp) being significantly lower than for the actual non-tracking treatments (mean: 6.3 pp range: 0.6-16.0 pp) (p = 0.002). MLC tracking of large target motion perpendicular to the MLC leaves created dose artifacts with regions of overdose in the CTV. As a result, the mean dose in spherical volumes centered in the middle of the CTV was on average 2.4 pp (5 mm radius sphere) and 1.3 pp (15 mm radius sphere) higher than planned (p = 0.002). Conclusions: Intrafraction tumor motion can deteriorate the CTV dose of liver SBRT. The planned CTV dose coverage may be restored with KIM-guided MLC tracking. However, MLC tracking may have a tendency to create hotspots in the CTV