Radical Extirpation With Intraoperative Radiotherapy for Locally Recurrent Gynecologic Cancer: An Institutional Review

Intraoperative radiotherapy; Overall survival; Progression-free survivalRadioterapia intraoperatoria; Supervivencia global; Supervivencia libre de progresiónRadioteràpia intraoperatòria; Supervivència global; Supervivència lliure de progressióObjective To report survival outcomes in patients with locally recurrent gynecologic cancers managed with curative-intent radical extirpation, perioperative external beam radiotherapy, and intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT). Patients and Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of 44 patients with locally recurrent gynecologic cancer treated at a single tertiary-care center (Mayo Clinic in Arizona) over a 15-year period (January 1, 2004, to July 31, 2019). This cohort included patients with uterine (n=21, 47.7%), ovarian (n=3, 6.8%), cervical (n=11, 25.0%), vaginal (n=2, 4.5%), vulvar (n=1, 2.3%), and unknown primary (n=6, 13.6%) cancer. Curative-intent radical extirpation included pelvic exenteration (n=13, 29.5%), laterally extended endopelvic resection (n=22, 50.0%), excision of para-aortic lymph node metastasis (n=8, 18.2%), and radical vaginectomy (n=1, 2.3%). Of the 44 patients in our cohort, 37 (84.1%) received IORT and 7 (15.9%) had intended to receive IORT but did not receive it. Results The median follow-up for the 44 patients was 12 months (range, 1 to 161 months). For patients who received IORT, the median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 13 and 21 months, respectively, and the 3-year cumulative incidence of central, locoregional, and distant recurrence was 27.0% (10 of 37), 40.5% (15 of 37), and 37.8% (14 of 37), respectively. Surgical margins were classified as negative (28 of 44, 63.6%), microscopic (11 of 44, 25.0%), or macroscopic (5 of 44, 11.4%). Negative, microscopic, and macroscopic surgical margins resulted in 3-year PFS of 51.8%, 20.5%, and 0%, respectively (P=.01) and 3-year OS of 62.9%, 20.0%, and 0%, respectively (P=.035). Progression-free survival (P=.69) and OS (P=.88) were not different between patients with negative surgical margins who received (n=21) and did not receive (n=7) IORT. Ten of 37 patients (27.0%) had development of grade 3 or higher toxicities, with 1 death due to sepsis. Conclusion Complete tumor resection at the time of curative-intent radical extirpation achieved higher rates of PFS and OS regardless of IORT administration

Benchmarking a foundation LLM on its ability to re-label structure names in accordance with the AAPM TG-263 report

Purpose: To introduce the concept of using large language models (LLMs) to re-label structure names in accordance with the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group (TG)-263 standard, and to establish a benchmark for future studies to reference. Methods and Materials: The Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT)-4 application programming interface (API) was implemented as a Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) storage server, which upon receiving a structure set DICOM file, prompts GPT-4 to re-label the structure names of both target volumes and normal tissues according to the AAPM TG-263. Three disease sites, prostate, head and neck, and thorax were selected for evaluation. For each disease site category, 150 patients were randomly selected for manually tuning the instructions prompt (in batches of 50) and 50 patients were randomly selected for evaluation. Structure names that were considered were those that were most likely to be relevant for studies utilizing structure contours for many patients. Results: The overall re-labeling accuracy of both target volumes and normal tissues for prostate, head and neck, and thorax cases was 96.0%, 98.5%, and 96.9% respectively. Re-labeling of target volumes was less accurate on average except for prostate - 100%, 93.1%, and 91.1% respectively. Conclusions: Given the accuracy of GPT-4 in re-labeling structure names of both target volumes and normal tissues as presented in this work, LLMs are poised to be the preferred method for standardizing structure names in radiation oncology, especially considering the rapid advancements in LLM capabilities that are likely to continue.Comment: 20 pages, 5 figures, 1 tabl

Modelling small block aperture in an in-house developed GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo-based dose engine for pencil beam scanning proton therapy

Purpose: To enhance an in-house graphic-processing-unit (GPU) accelerated virtual particle (VP)-based Monte Carlo (MC) proton dose engine (VPMC) to model aperture blocks in both dose calculation and optimization for pencil beam scanning proton therapy (PBSPT)-based stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). Methods and Materials: A block aperture module was integrated into VPMC. VPMC was validated by an opensource code, MCsquare, in eight water phantom simulations with 3cm thick brass apertures: four were with aperture openings of 1, 2, 3, and 4cm without a range shifter, while the other four were with same aperture opening configurations with a range shifter of 45mm water equivalent thickness. VPMC was benchmarked with MCsquare and RayStation MC for 10 patients with small targets (average volume 8.4 cc). Finally, 3 patients were selected for robust optimization with aperture blocks using VPMC. Results: In the water phantoms, 3D gamma passing rate (2%/2mm/10%) between VPMC and MCsquare were 99.71$\pm$0.23%. In the patient geometries, 3D gamma passing rates (3%/2mm/10%) between VPMC/MCsquare and RayStation MC were 97.79$\pm$2.21%/97.78$\pm$1.97%, respectively. The calculation time was greatly decreased from 112.45$\pm$114.08 seconds (MCsquare) to 8.20$\pm$6.42 seconds (VPMC), both having statistical uncertainties of about 0.5%. The robustly optimized plans met all the dose-volume-constraints (DVCs) for the targets and OARs per our institutional protocols. The mean calculation time for 13 influence matrices in robust optimization by VPMC was 41.6 seconds. Conclusion: VPMC has been successfully enhanced to model aperture blocks in dose calculation and optimization for the PBSPT-based SRS.Comment: 3 tables, 3 figure

Beam mask and sliding window-facilitated deep learning-based accurate and efficient dose prediction for pencil beam scanning proton therapy

Purpose: To develop a DL-based PBSPT dose prediction workflow with high accuracy and balanced complexity to support on-line adaptive proton therapy clinical decision and subsequent replanning. Methods: PBSPT plans of 103 prostate cancer patients and 83 lung cancer patients previously treated at our institution were included in the study, each with CTs, structure sets, and plan doses calculated by the in-house developed Monte-Carlo dose engine. For the ablation study, we designed three experiments corresponding to the following three methods: 1) Experiment 1, the conventional region of interest (ROI) method. 2) Experiment 2, the beam mask (generated by raytracing of proton beams) method to improve proton dose prediction. 3) Experiment 3, the sliding window method for the model to focus on local details to further improve proton dose prediction. A fully connected 3D-Unet was adopted as the backbone. Dose volume histogram (DVH) indices, 3D Gamma passing rates, and dice coefficients for the structures enclosed by the iso-dose lines between the predicted and the ground truth doses were used as the evaluation metrics. The calculation time for each proton dose prediction was recorded to evaluate the method's efficiency. Results: Compared to the conventional ROI method, the beam mask method improved the agreement of DVH indices for both targets and OARs and the sliding window method further improved the agreement of the DVH indices. For the 3D Gamma passing rates in the target, OARs, and BODY (outside target and OARs), the beam mask method can improve the passing rates in these regions and the sliding window method further improved them. A similar trend was also observed for the dice coefficients. In fact, this trend was especially remarkable for relatively low prescription isodose lines. The dose predictions for all the testing cases were completed within 0.25s

Preoperative Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Brain Metastases

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is increasingly utilized to treat the resection cavity following resection of brain metastases and recent randomized trials have confirmed postoperative SRS as a standard of care. Postoperative SRS for resected brain metastases improves local control compared to observation, while also preserving neurocognitive function in comparison to whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT). However, even with surgery and SRS, rates of local recurrence at 1 year may be as high as 40%, especially for larger cavities, and there is also a known risk of leptomeningeal disease after surgery. Additional treatment strategies are needed to improve control while maintaining or decreasing the toxicity profile associated with treatment. Preoperative SRS is discussed here as one such approach. Preoperative SRS allows for contouring of an intact metastasis, as opposed to an irregularly shaped surgical cavity in the post-op setting. Delivering SRS prior to surgery may also allow for a “sterilizing” effect, with the potential to increase tumor control by decreasing intra-operative seeding of viable tumor cells beyond the treated cavity, and decreasing risk of leptomeningeal disease. Because there is no need to treat brain surrounding tumor in the preoperative setting, and since the majority of the high dose volume can then be resected at surgery, the rate of symptomatic radiation necrosis may also be reduced with preoperative SRS. In this mini review, we explore the potential benefits and risks of preoperative vs. postoperative SRS for brain metastases as well as the existing literature to date, including published outcomes with preoperative SRS

Pre-operative vs. post-operative stereotactic radiosurgery for operative metastatic brain tumors: study protocol for a phase III clinical trial

Abstract Background and Objectives Almost one third of cancer patients in the United States will develop brain metastases on an annual basis. Surgical resection is indicated in the setting of brain metastases for reasons, such as maximizing local control in select patients, decompression of mass effect, and/or tissue diagnosis. The current standard of care following resection of a brain metastasis has shifted from whole brain radiation therapy to post-operative stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). However, there is a significant rate of local recurrence within one year of postoperative SRS. Emerging retrospective and prospective data suggest pre-operative SRS is a safe and potentially effective treatment paradigm for surgical brain metastases. This trial intends to determine, for patients with an indication for resection of a brain metastasis, whether there is an increase in the time to a composite endpoint of adverse outcomes; including the first occurrence of either: local recurrence, leptomeningeal disease, or symptomatic radiation brain necrosis - in patients who receive pre-operative SRS as compared to patients who receive post-operative SRS. Methods This randomized phase III clinical trial compares pre-operative with post-operative SRS for brain metastases. A dynamic random allocation procedure will allocate an equal number of patients to each arm: pre-operative SRS followed by surgery or surgery followed by post-operative SRS. Expected outcomes If pre-operative SRS improves outcomes relative to post-operative SRS, this will establish pre-operative SRS as superior. If post-operative SRS proves superior to pre-operative SRS, it will remain a standard of care and halt the increasing utilization of pre-operative SRS. If there is no difference in pre- versus post-operative SRS, then pre-operative SRS may still be preferred, given patient convenience and the potential for a condensed timeline. Discussion Emerging retrospective and prospective data have demonstrated some benefits of pre-op SRS vs. post-op SRS. This study will show whether there is an increase in the time to the composite endpoint. Additionally, the study will compare overall survival; patient-reported outcomes; morbidity; completion of planned therapies; time to systemic therapy; time to regional progression; time to CNS progression; time to subsequent treatment; rate of radiation necrosis; rate of local recurrence; and rate of leptomeningeal disease. Trial registration number NCT03750227 (Registration date: 21/11/2018)

Distinct Phenotypic Clusters of Glioblastoma Growth and Response Kinetics Predict Survival

PURPOSE: Despite the intra- and intertumoral heterogeneity seen in glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), there is little definitive data on the underlying cause of the differences in patient survivals. Serial imaging assessment of tumor growth allows quantification of tumor growth kinetics (TGK) measured in terms of changes in the velocity of radial expansion seen on imaging. Because a systematic study of this entire TGK phenotype-growth before treatment and during each treatment to recurrence -has never been coordinately studied in GBMs, we sought to identify whether patients cluster into discrete groups on the basis of their TGK. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From our multi-institutional database, we identified 48 patients who underwent maximally safe resection followed by radiotherapy with imaging follow-up through the time of recurrence. The patients were then clustered into two groups through a k-means algorithm taking as input only the TGK before and during treatment. RESULTS: There was a significant survival difference between the clusters ( P = .003). Paradoxically, patients among the long-lived cluster had significantly larger tumors at diagnosis ( P = .027) and faster growth before treatment ( P = .003) but demonstrated a better response to adjuvant chemotherapy ( P = .048). A predictive model was built to identify which cluster patients would likely fall into on the basis of information that would be available to clinicians immediately after radiotherapy (accuracy, 90.3%). CONCLUSION: Dichotomizing the heterogeneity of GBMs into two populations-one faster growing yet more responsive with increased survival and one slower growing yet less responsive with shorter survival-suggests that many patients who receive standard-of-care treatments may get better benefit from select alternative treatments

Advantages of intensity modulated proton therapy during hippocampal avoidance whole brain radiation therapy

Background and purpose: Intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) allows for modulation parameterized for individual beamlets by position, intensity, and depth. This modulation capability is ideally suited for sparing organs at risk intermediate of the radiation target, such as hippocampal volumes within the whole brain. This work compared IMPT relative to volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) during hippocampal avoidance whole brain radiation therapy (HA WBRT). Materials and methods: Ten adult and ten pediatric patients previously treated for central nervous system malignancies were identified. IMPT and VMAT treatment plans employing HA WBRT were generated for each patient, delivering 30 GyE (Gray Equivalent) in 10 fractions for adults and 36 GyE in 20 fractions for pediatrics. Dose indices, including dose volume histogram metrics and homogeneity index HI = [D5% − D95%]/[Dmean] × 100, were used to assess plan quality and describe target coverage and normal-tissue sparing. Results: IMPT offered significant benefits relative to VMAT for hippocampal sparing. Hippocampal mean dose was reduced from 13.7 ± 0.8 Gy with VMAT to 5.4 ± 0.3 GyE using IMPT for pediatrics, and was reduced from 11.7 ± 0.9 Gy with VMAT to 4.4 ± 0.2 GyE using IMPT for adults. IMPT similarly lowered left hippocampal mean dose. Dose to 95% of the clinical target volume was statistically equivalent for both groups; however IMPT reduced the homogeneity index by roughly half. Conclusion: This manuscript demonstrates that HA IMPT can match or exceed dosimetric benefits offered with modulated X-rays. Inclusion of IMPT in future prospective studies is warranted. Keywords: Intensity modulated proton therapy, Hippocampal sparing, Whole brain radiation therapy, RTOG 093