Stereotactic body radiation therapy for liver tumours using flattening filter free beam: dosimetric and technical considerations

Purpose: To report the initial institute experience in terms of dosimetric and technical aspects in stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) delivered using flattening filter free (FFF) beam in patients with liver lesions.Methods and Materials: From October 2010 to September 2011, 55 consecutive patients with 73 primary or metastatic hepatic lesions were treated with SBRT on TrueBeam using FFF beam and RapidArc technique. Clinical target volume (CTV) was defined on multi-phase CT scans, PET/CT, MRI, and 4D-CT. Dose prescription was 75 Gy in 3 fractions to planning target volume (PTV). Constraints for organs at risk were: 700 cc of liver free from the 15 Gy isodose, D max < 21 Gy for stomach and duodenum, D max < 30 Gy for heart, D 0.1 cc < 18 Gy for spinal cord, V 15 Gy < 35% for kidneys. The dose was downscaled in cases of not full achievement of dose constraints. Daily cone beam CT (CBCT) was performed.Results: Forty-three patients with a single lesion, nine with two lesions and three with three lesions were treated with this protocol. Target and organs at risk objectives were met for all patients. Mean delivery time was 2.8 ± 1.0 min. Pre-treatment plan verification resulted in a Gamma Agreement Index of 98.6 ± 0.8%. Mean on-line co-registration shift of the daily CBCT to the simulation CT were: -0.08, 0.05 and -0.02 cm with standard deviations of 0.33, 0.39 and 0.55 cm in, vertical, longitudinal and lateral directions respectively.Conclusions: SBRT for liver targets delivered by means of FFF resulted to be feasible with short beam on time. © 2012 Mancosu et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

Stereotactic radiotherapy for ultra-central lung oligometastases in non-small-cell lung cancer

Background: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in ultra-central (UC) lung tumors, defined in the presence of planning target volume (PTV) overlap or direct tumor abutment to the central bronchial tree or esophagus, may be correlated to a higher incidence of severe adverse events. Outcome and toxicity in oligometastatic (≤3 metastases) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients receiving SBRT for UC tumors were evaluated. Methods: Oligometastatic NSCLC patients treated with SBRT for UC were retrospectively reviewed. Local control (LC), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated. Incidence and grade of toxicity were evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed to assess the impact of clinical and treatment-related variables on outcome and toxicity occurrence. Results: Seventy-two patients were treated to a median biologically effective dose (BED) of 105 (75–132) Gy10 . Two-year LC, DMFS, PFS, and OS were 83%, 46%, 43%, and 49%. BED>75 Gy10 was correlated to superior LC (p = 0.02), PFS (p = 0.036), and OS (p < 0.001). Grade ≥3 toxicity rate was 7%, including one fatal esophagitis. No variables were correlated to DMFS or to occurrence of overall and grade ≥3 toxicity. Conclusions: SBRT using dose-intensive schedules improves outcome in NSCLC patients. Overall toxicity is acceptable, although rare but potentially fatal toxicities may occur

Volumetric modulated arc therapy with flattening filter free beams for isolated abdominal/pelvic lymph nodes: report of dosimetric and early clinical results in oligometastatic patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>SBRT is a safe and efficient strategy to locally control multiple metastatic sites. While research in the physics domain for Flattening Filter Free Beams (FFF) beams is increasing, there are few clinical data of FFF beams in clinical practice. Here we reported dosimentric and early clinical data of SBRT and FFF delivery in isolated lymph node oligometastatic patients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Between October 2010 and March 2012, 34 patients were treated with SBRT for oligometastatic lymph node metastasis on a Varian TrueBeam^TM treatment machine using Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (RapidArc). We retrospectively evaluated a total of 25 patients for isolated lymph node metastases in abdomen and/or pelvis treated with SBRT and FFF (28 treatments). Acute toxicity was recorded. Local control evaluation was scored by means of CT scan and/or PET scan.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>All dosimetric results are in line with what published for the same type of stereotactic abdominal lymph node metastases treatments and fractionation, using RapidArc. All 25 FFF SBRT patients completed the treatment. Acute gastrointestinal toxicity was minimal: one patient showed Grade 1 gastrointestinal toxicity. Three other patients presented Grade 2 toxicity. No Grade 3 or higher was recorded. All toxicities were recovered within one week. The preliminary clinical results at the median follow up of 195 days are: complete response in 12 cases, partial response in 11, stable disease in 5, with an overall response rate of 82%; no local progression was recorded.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Data of dosimetrical findings and acute toxicity are excellent for patients treated with SBRT with VMAT using FFF beams. Preliminary clinical results showed a high rate of local control in irradiated lesion. Further data and longer follow up are needed to assess late toxicity and definitive clinical outcomes.</p

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field