Reproducibility of the lung anatomy under active breathing coordinator control:Dosimetric consequences for scanned proton treatments

Purpose The treatment of moving targets with scanned proton beams is challenging. For motion mitigation, an Active Breathing Coordinator (ABC) can be used to assist breath-holding. The delivery of pencil beam scanning fields often exceeds feasible breath-hold durations, requiring high breath-hold reproducibility. We evaluated the robustness of scanned proton therapy against anatomical uncertainties when treating nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients during ABC controlled breath-hold. Methods Four subsequent MRIs of five healthy volunteers (3 male, 2 female, age: 25-58, BMI: 19-29) were acquired under ABC controlled breath-hold during two simulated treatment fractions, providing both intrafractional and interfractional information about breath-hold reproducibility. Deformation vector fields between these MRIs were used to deform CTs of five NSCLC patients. Per patient, four or five cases with different tumor locations were modeled, simulating a total of 23 NSCLC patients. Robustly optimized (3 and 5 mm setup uncertainty respectively and 3% density perturbation) intensity-modulated proton plans (IMPT) were created and split into subplans of 20 s duration (assumed breath-hold duration). A fully fractionated treatment was recalculated on the deformed CTs. For each treatment fraction the deformed CTs representing multiple breath-hold geometries were alternated to simulate repeated ABC breath-holding during irradiation. Also a worst-case scenario was simulated by recalculating the complete treatment plan on the deformed CT scan showing the largest deviation with the first deformed CT scan, introducing a systematic error. Both the fractionated breath-hold scenario and worst-case scenario were dosimetrically evaluated. Results Looking at the deformation vector fields between the MRIs of the volunteers, up to 8 mm median intra- and interfraction displacements (without outliers) were found for all lung segments. The dosimetric evaluation showed a median difference in D-98% between the planned and breath-hold scenarios of -0.1 Gy (range: -4.1 Gy to 2.0 Gy). D-98% target coverage was more than 57.0 Gy for 22/23 cases. The D-1 cc of the CTV increased for 21/23 simulations, with a median difference of 0.9 Gy (range: -0.3 to 4.6 Gy). For 14/23 simulations the increment was beyond the allowed maximum dose of 63.0 Gy, though remained under 66.0 Gy (110% of the prescribed dose of 60.0 Gy). Organs at risk doses differed little compared to the planned doses (difference in mean doses <0.9 Gy for the heart and lungs, <1.4% difference in V-35 [%] and V-20 [%] to the esophagus and lung). Conclusions When treating under ABC controlled breath-hold, robustly optimized IMPT plans show limited dosimetric consequences due to anatomical variations between repeated ABC breath-holds for most cases. Thus, the combination of robustly optimized IMPT plans and the delivery under ABC controlled breath-hold presents a safe approach for PBS lung treatments

Phase 3 Randomized Trial of Prophylactic Cranial Irradiation With or Without Hippocampus Avoidance in SCLC (NCT01780675)

Introduction: To compare neurocognitive functioning in patients with SCLC who received prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) with or without hippocampus avoidance (HA). Methods: In a multicenter, randomized phase 3 trial (NCT01780675), patients with SCLC were randomized to standard PCI or HA-PCI of 25 Gy in 10 fractions. Neuropsychological tests were performed at baseline and 4, 8, 12, 18, and 24 months after PCI. The primary end point was total recall on the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised at 4 months; a decline of at least five points from baseline was considered a failure. Secondary end points included other cognitive outcomes, evaluation of the incidence, location of brain metastases, and overall survival. Results: From April 2013 to March 2018, a total of 168 patients were randomized. The median follow-up time was 26.6 months. In both treatment arms, 70% of the patients had limited disease and baseline characteristics were well balanced. Decline on the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised total recall score at 4 months was not significantly different between the arms: 29% of patients on PCI and 28% of patients on HA-PCI dropped greater than or equal to five points (p = 1.000). Performance on other cognitive tests measuring memory, executive function, attention, motor function, and processing speed did not change significantly different over time between the groups. The overall survival was not significantly different (p = 0.43). The cumulative incidence of brain metastases at 2 years was 20% (95% confidence interval: 12%-29%) for the PCI arm and 16% (95% confidence interval: 7%-24%) for the HA-PCI arm. Conclusions: This randomized phase 3 trial did not find a lower probability of cognitive decline in patients with SCLC receiving HA-PCI compared with conventional PCI. No increase in brain metastases at 2 years was observed in the HA-PCI arm. (C) 2021 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

Organ sparing potential and inter-fraction robustness of adaptive intensity modulated proton therapy for lung cancer

Background: The aim of this study was to compare adaptive intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) robustness and organ sparing capabilities with that of adaptive volumetric arc photon therapy (VMAT). Material and methods: Eighteen lung cancer patients underwent a planning 4DCT (p4DCT) and 5 weekly repeated 4DCT (r4DCT) scans. Target volumes and organs at risk were manually delineated on the three-dimensional (3D) average scans of the p4DCT (av_p4DCT) and of the r4DCT scans (av_r4DCT). Planning target volume (PTV)-based VMAT plans and internal clinical target volume (ICTV)-based robust IMPT plans were optimized in 3D on the av_p4DCT and re-calculated on the av_r4DCTs. Re-planning on av_r4DCTs was performed when indicated and accumulated doses were evaluated on the av_p4DCT. Results: Adaptive VMAT and IMPT resulted in adequate ICTV coverage on av_r4DCT in all patients and adequate accumulated-dose ICTV coverage on av_p4DCT in 17/18 patients (due to a shrinking target in one patient). More frequent re-planning was needed for IMPT than for VMAT. The average mean heart dose reduction with IMPT compared with VMAT was 4.6 Gy (p = .001) and it was >5 Gy for five patients (6, 7, 8, 15, and 22 Gy). The average mean lung dose reduction was 3.2 Gy (p < .001). Significant reductions in heart and lung V5 Gy were observed with IMPT. Conclusion: Robust-planned IMPT required re-planning more often than VMAT but resulted in similar accumulated ICTV coverage. With IMPT, heart and lung mean dose values and low dose regions were significantly reduced. Substantial cardiac sparing was obtained in a subgroup of five patients (28%)

Necessity of manually adjusting automatic deformed CTVs on repeat CT scan to evaluate CTV coverage in IMPT for lung cancer

Background/Introduction: Manual CTV adjustment after deformable CTV registration on repeat-CT scans (rCT) is time consuming and may delay decisions on whether or not to perform plan adaptations. Our aim was to investigate if omitting such manual CTV adjustments would alter the decisions and/or impact the overall adequacy of treatment. Methodology: Seventeen lung cancer patients underwent a 4D planning-CT (pCT0) and 3-5 weekly 4D rCTs. In total 82 4D-average rCTs were available. Robustly optimized IMPT plans were established on the pCT0 aiming for a CTV D98 ≥ 57 Gy. The plans were evaluated on all rCTs including setup and range error scenarios. CTVs were deformed (intensity based deformable registration) from pCT0 to the rCTs (CTVauto) and manually adjusted by a clinician (CTVman). When rCT CTVauto and/or CTVman D98 &lt; 56.5 Gy (worst case scenario dose) the IMPT plan was adapted. Results: On average, CTVman was smaller than CTVauto (Δ volume in weeks 1-5: -4%, -6%, -9%, -11% and -15% (p &lt; 0.001), respectively. The average CTVauto D98 and CTVman D98 on all rCTs were 55.17 Gy and 55.13 Gy (p = 0.767), respectively. Omitting CTVman on all 82 rCTs would result in 3 ‘unnecessary' plan adjustments and 1 ‘skipped' plan adjustment. In the latter single case, the weekly rCTs dose deformed and summed in the CTV on pCT0 was adequate despite the skipped plan adaptation (58.1 Gy). Conclusions: In 17 lung cancer patients, omitting manual adjustments of deformed CTVs on weekly rCTs did not impact adequate CTV coverage of IMPT treatment

Quality assurance and safety of hippocampal avoidance prophylactic cranial irradiation in the multicenter randomized phase III trial (NCT01780675)

Abstract: Objective: NCT01780675, a multicenter randomized phase III trial of prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) versus PCI with hippocampal sparing in small cell lung cancer (SCLC) investigated neurocognitive decline and safety. As part of quality assurance, we evaluated if hippocampal avoidance (HA)-PCI was performed according to the NCT01780675 trial protocol instructions, and performed a safety analysis to study the incidence and location of brain metastases for patients treated with HA-PCI.Methods: This retrospective analysis evaluated the quality of the irradiation given in the randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing SCLC patients receiving PCI with or without hippocampal avoidance, using intensity mod-ulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). The dose distribution for each patient receiving HA-PCI was retrieved and analyzed to evaluate if the treatment dose constraints were met. A ques-tionnaire was sent out to all participating sites, and data on radiotherapy technique, pre-treatment dummy runs, phantom measurements and treatment electronic portal imaging device (EPID) dosimetry were collected and analyzed. As part of the safety analysis, the follow-up magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computerized to-mography (CT) scans on which cranial disease progression was first diagnosed were collected and matched to the radiotherapy planning dose distribution. The matched scans were reviewed to analyze the location of the brain metastases in relation to the prescribed dose.Results: A total of 168 patients were randomized in the NCT01780675 trial in 10 centers in the Netherlands and Belgium from April 2013 until March 2018. Eighty two patients receiving HA-PCI without evidence of brain metastases were analyzed. All patients were treated with 25 Gy in 10 fractions. Dummy runs and phantom measurements were performed in all institutions prior to enrolling patients into the study. The radiotherapy (RT) plans showed a median mean bilateral hippocampal dose of 8.0 Gy, range 5.4-11.4 (constraint <= 8.5 Gy). In six patients (7.3%) there was a protocol violation of the mean dose in one or both hippocampi. In four of these six patients (4.9%) the mean dose to both hippocampi exceeded the constraint, in 1 patient (1.2%) only the left and in 1 patient (1.2%) only the right hippocampal mean dose was violated (average median dose left and right 8.9 Gy). All patients met the trial dose constraint of V 115% PTV <= 1%; however the D max PTV constraint of <= 28.75 Gy was violated in 22.0% of the patients. The safety analysis showed that 14 patients (17.1%) developed cranial progression. No solitary brain metastases in the underdosed region were found. Two out of 11 patients with multiple brain metastasis developed metastasis in the underdosed region(s). Conclusions: The radiotherapy quality within the HA-PCI trial is performed according to the protocol guidelines. The dose constraints to the hippocampi are met in the vast majority of cases. In all patients, the volume of the brain for which a higher dose was accepted, is according to the trial. However, within this volume there are small areas with higher doses than advised

Quality assurance and safety of hippocampal avoidance prophylactic cranial irradiation in the multicenter randomized phase III trial (NCT01780675)

Objective: NCT01780675, a multicenter randomized phase III trial of prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) versus PCI with hippocampal sparing in small cell lung cancer (SCLC) investigated neurocognitive decline and safety. As part of quality assurance, we evaluated if HA-PCI was performed according to the NCT01780675 trial protocol instructions, and performed a safety analysis to study the incidence and location of brain metastases for patients treated with HA-PCI. Methods: This retrospective analysis evaluated the quality of the irradiation given in the randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing SCLC patients receiving PCI with or without hippocampal avoidance, using intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). The dose distribution for each patient receiving HA-PCI was retrieved and analyzed to evaluate if the treatment dose constraints were met. A questionnaire was sent out to all participating sites, and data on radiotherapy technique, pre-treatment dummy runs, phantom measurements and treatment electronic portal imaging device (EPID) dosimetry were collected and analyzed. As part of the safety analysis, the follow-up magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computerized tomography (CT) scans on which cranial disease progression was first diagnosed were collected and matched to the radiotherapy planning dose distribution. The matched scans were reviewed to analyze the location of the brain metastases in relation to the prescribed dose. Results: A total of 168 patients were randomized in the NCT01780675 trial in 10 centers in the Netherlands and Belgium from April 2013 until March 2018. Eighty two patients receiving HA-PCI without evidence of brain metastases were analyzed. All patients were treated with 25 Gy in 10 fractions. Dummy runs and phantom measurements were performed in all institutions prior to enrolling patients into the study. The radiotherapy (RT) plans showed a median mean bilateral hippocampal dose of 8.0 Gy, range 5.4–11.4 (constraint ≤ 8.5 Gy). In six patients (7.3%) there was a protocol violation of the mean dose in one or both hippocampi. In four of these six patients (4.9%) the mean dose to both hippocampi exceeded the constraint, in 1 patient (1.2%) only the left and in 1 patient (1.2%) only the right hippocampal mean dose was violated (average median dose left and right 8.9 Gy). All patients met the trial dose constraint of V115% PTV ≤ 1%; however the Dmax PTV constraint of ≤ 28.75 Gy was violated in 22.0% of the patients. The safety analysis showed that 14 patients (17.1%) developed cranial progression. No solitary brain metastases in the underdosed region were found. Two out of 11 patients with multiple brain metastasis developed metastasis in the underdosed region(s). Conclusions: The radiotherapy quality within the HA-PCI trial is performed according to the protocol guidelines. The dose constraints to the hippocampi are met in the vast majority of cases. In all patients, the volume of the brain for which a higher dose was accepted, is according to the trial. However, within this volume there are small areas with higher doses than advised