The reasons for discrepancies in target volume delineation : a SASRO study on head-and-neck and prostate cancers.

PURPOSE: To understand the reasons for differences in the delineation of target volumes between physicians. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 18 Swiss radiooncology centers were invited to delineate volumes for one prostate and one head-and-neck case. In addition, a questionnaire was sent to evaluate the differences in the volume definition (GTV [gross tumor volume], CTV [clinical target volume], PTV [planning target volume]), the various estimated margins, and the nodes at risk. Coherence between drawn and stated margins by centers was calculated. The questionnaire also included a nonspecific series of questions regarding planning methods in each institution. RESULTS: Fairly large differences in the drawn volumes were seen between the centers in both cases and also in the definition of volumes. Correlation between drawn and stated margins was fair in the prostate case and poor in the head-and-neck case. The questionnaire revealed important differences in the planning methods between centers. CONCLUSION: These large differences could be explained by (1) a variable knowledge/interpretation of ICRU definitions, (2) variable interpretations of the potential microscopic extent, (3) difficulties in GTV identification, (4) differences in the concept, and (5) incoherence between theory (i.e., stated margins) and practice (i.e., drawn margins).

Helical tomotherapy (HT) for the treatment of anal canal cancer: preliminary clinical results, and dosimetric comparison between HT and intensity-modulated or 3D conformal radiotherapy

Background: To report a single-center experience in 19 patients (pts) with anal canal cancer treated with helical tomotherapy (HT) and concurrent chemotherapy, and compare the dosimetric results with fixed-field intensitymodulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D RT). Materials and Methods: Between 2007 and 2008, 19 consecutive pts were treated with HT and concurrent CT for anal canal cancer. Median age was 59 years (range, 38−83), and female/male ratio was 14/5. The majority of the pts had T2 or T3 tumours (68.4%), and 52.6% had positive lymph nodes. In all 19 pts, pelvic and inguinal nodes, and tumour irradiation was given using HT upto a median dose of 36 Gy (1.8 Gy/fr) followed by a 1-week gap. A boost dose of 23.4 Gy (1.8 Gy/fr) was delivered to the tumour and involved nodes using 3DRT (n = 12), HT (n = 6), or IMRT (n = 1). Simultaneous integrated boost was used in none of the pts. All but one patient with a T1N0 tumour received concomitant mitomycin/5- fluorouracil (n = 12) or mitomycin/capecitabin (n = 7) CT. Toxicity was scored according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCICTCAE v3.0). HT plans and treatments were generated using Tomotherapy, Inc., software and hardware; and 3D or IMRT boost plans with the CMS treatment planning system (TPS), using 6−18 MV photons from a Siemens Primus accelerator. For dosimetric comparison, computed tomography data sets of 10 pts were imported into the TPS, and 3D and 5-field step-andshoot IMRT plans were generated for each case. Plans were optimized with the aim of assessing organs at risk (OAR) and healthy-tissue sparing while enforcing highly conformal target coverage, and evaluated by dose-volume histograms (DVH) of planning target volumes (PTV) and OAR. Results: With a median follow-up of 13 months (range, 3−18), all pts are alive and well; except one patient developing local recurrence at 12 months. No patient developed grade 3 or more acute toxicity. No unplanned treatment interruption was necessary because of toxicity. With 360-degree-of-freedom beam projection, HT showed an advantage over 3D or IMRT plans in terms of dose conformity around the PTV, and dose gradients were steeper outside the PTV, resulting in reduced doses to OARs. Using HT, acute toxicity was acceptable, and seemed to be better than historical standards. Conclusion: We conclude that HT combined with concurrent chemotherapy for anal canal cancer is effective and tolerable. Compared to 3DRT or 5-field IMRT, there is better conformity around the PTV, and OAR sparing.

Hippocampal sparing whole brain radiotherapy and simultaneously integrated boost with helical tomotherapy in patients with brain metastases

Materials/Methods: Four patients who underwent whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) and simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) between August 2010 and February 2011 were included to this study. Their age were 60, 61, 65, and 70 years. Primary diagnosis was infiltrative ductal breast cancer in two patients, sigmoid adenocarcinoma in one, and transitional bladder cancer in the other patient. All patients underwent cranial surgery but not all of the metastases were operated in 2 patients. All but one (five metastases) patient presented with single brain metastasis. In 2 of the 4 patients, hippocampus was spared contralaterally due to vicinity of the lesions to unilateral hippocampus. Planning irradiation dose was 30 Gy in 10 fractions for WBRT and 40 Gy in 10 fractions for SIB over two weeks in three patients. In one patient, WBRT and boost doses were 36Gy and 50.4 Gy in 18 fractions. Our maximum dose constraints for hippocampus and eyes were 10 and 20 Gy, respectively. All organs were contoured manually. Hippocampi were contoured according to published guidelines, and 5-mm margin expansion was used for hippocampal avoidance volume. All plans utilized a field width of 2.5 cm. Modulation factors ranged between 2 and 3.5. A pitch of 0,287 was used for all patients. All plans were evaluated according to conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), target coverage (TC), and mean normalized total dose (NTDmean). An alpha/beta ratio of 2 was assumed for the hippocampus.Results: Median planning target volume (PTV) for metastases was 17.47 cc.Median hippocampal avoidance volume was 14.73 cc (range, 9.25-16.18 cc). Median average hippocampaldose was 11.84 Gy (range, 10.14-21.01 Gy). PTVs were fully covered with more than 95% of the prescribed dose for all patients. With a median follow-up time of 6 months (range, 3-9 months), all patients were alive without recurrent intracranial disease. To date, no neurocognitive decline reported in any of the patients.Conclusions: Preclinical evidence suggests that hippocampal sparing during cranial irradiation may mitigate neurocognitive decline. Using HT, we significantly reduced the mean dose to the hippocampus without jeopardizing coverage of metastases and whole brain.

Dummy run and conformity indices in the ongoing EORTC low-grade glioma trial 22033-26033: First evaluation of quality of radiotherapy planning.

PURPOSE: Early assessment of radiotherapy (RT) quality in the ongoing EORTC trial comparing primary temozolomide versus RT in low-grade gliomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: RT plans provided for dummy cases were evaluated and compared against expert plans. We analysed: (1) tumour and organs-at-risk delineation, (2) geometric and dosimetric characteristics, (3) planning parameters, compliance with dose prescription and Dmax for OAR (4) indices: RTOG conformity index (CI), coverage factor (CF), tissue protection factor (PF); conformity number (CN = PF x CF); dose homogeneity in PTV (U). RESULTS: Forty-one RT plans were evaluated. Only two (5%) centres were requested to repeat CTV-PTV delineations. Three (7%) plans had a significant under-dosage and dose homogeneity in one deviated > 10%. Dose distribution was good with mean values of 1.5, 1, 0.68, and 0.68 (ideal values = 1) for CI, CF, PF, and CN, respectively. CI and CN strongly correlated with PF and they correlated with PTV. Planning with more beams seems to increase PTV(Dmin), improving CF. U correlated with PTV(Dmax). CONCLUSION: Preliminary results of the dummy run procedure indicate that most centres conformed to protocol requirements. To quantify plan quality we recommend systematic calculation of U and either CI or CN, both of which measure the amount of irradiated normal brain tissue.

Carotid Dose Spring in Definitive Irradiation of T1N0 Squamous Cell Laryngeal Carcinoma Using Helical Tomotherapy

Purpose/Objective(s): To implement a carotid dose sparing protocol using helical Tomotherapy in T1N0 squamous cell laryngeal carcinoma.Materials/Methods: Between July and August 2010, 7 men with stage T1N0 laryngeal carcinoma were included in this study. Age ranged from 47 - 74 years. Staging included endoscopic examination, CT-scan and MRI when indicated. Planned irradiation dose was 70 Gy in 35 fractions over 7 weeks. A simple treatment planning algorithm for carotid sparing was used: maximum point dose to the carotids 35 Gy, to the spinal cord 30 Gy, and 100% PTV volume to be covered with 95% of the prescribed dose. Carotid volume of interest extended to 1 cm above and below of the PTV. Doses to the carotid arteries, to the critical organs, and to the planned target volume (PTV) with our standard laryngeal irradiation protocol was compared. Daily megavoltage scans were obtained before each fraction. When necessary, the Planned Adaptive software (TomoTherapy Inc., Madison, WI) was used to evaluatethe need for a re-planning, which has never been indicated. Dose data were extracted using the VelocityAI software (Atlanta, GA), and data normalization and dose-volume histogram (DVH) interpolation were realized using the Igor Pro software (Portland, OR).Results:A significant (p\0.05) carotid dose sparing compared to our standard protocol with an average maximum point dose of 38.3 Gy (standard deviation [SD] 4.05 Gy), average mean dose of 18.59 Gy (SD 0.83 Gy) was achieved. In all patients, 95% of the carotid volume received less than 28.4 Gy (SD 0.98 Gy). The average maximum point dose to the spinal cord was 25.8 Gy (SD 3.24 Gy). PTV was fully covered with more than 95% of the prescribed dose for all patients with an average maximum point dose of 74.1 Gy and the absolute maximum dose in a single patient of 75.2 Gy. To date, the clinical outcomes have been excellent. Three patients (42%) developed stage 1 mucositis that was conservatively managed, and all the patients presented a mild to moderate dysphonia. All adverse effects resolved spontaneously in the month following the end of treatment. Early local control rate is 100% considering a 4 - 5 months post treatment follow-up.Conclusions: Helical Tomotherapy allows a clinically significant decrease of carotid irradiation dose compared to standard irradiation protocols with an acceptable spinal cord dose tradeoff. Moreover, this technique allows the PTV to be homogenously covered with a curative irradiation dose. Daily control imaging brings added security margins especially when working with high dose gradients. Further investigations and follow-up are underway to better evaluate the late clinical outcomes especially the local control rate, late laryngeal and vascular toxicity, and expected potential impact on cerebrovascular events.

Physical considerations on discrepancies in target volume delineation.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To compare the delineations and interpretations of target volumes by physicians in different radio-oncology centers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eleven Swiss radio-oncology centers delineated volumes according to ICRU 50 recommendations for one prostate and one head and neck case. In order to evaluate the consistency of the volume delineations, the following parameters were determined: 1) the target volumes (GTV, CTV and manually expanded PTV) and their extensions in the three main axes and 2) the correlation of the volume delineated by each pair of centers using the ratio of the intersection to the union (called proximity index). RESULTS: The delineated prostate volume was 105+/-55cm(3) for the CTV and 218+/-44cm(3) for the PTV. The delineated head and neck volume was 46+/-15cm(3) for the GTV, 327+/-154cm(3) for the CTV and 528+/-106cm(3) for the PTV. The mean proximity index for the prostate case was 0.50+/-0.13 for the CTV and 0.57+/-0.11 for the PTV. The proximity index for the head and neck case was 0.45+/-0.09 for the GTV, 0.42+/-0.13 for the CTV and 0.59+/-0.06 for the PTV. CONCLUSIONS: Large discrepancies between all the delineated target volumes were observed. There was an inverse relationship between the CTV volume and the margin between CTV and PTV, leading to less discrepancies in the PTV than is the CTV delineations. There was more spread in the sagittal and frontal planes due to CT pixel anisotropy, which suggests that radiation oncologists should delineate the target volumes not only in the transverse plane, but also in the sagittal and frontal planes to improve the delineation by allowing a consistency check.

Carotid sparing in definitive irradiation of T1N0 squamous cell larnyx cancer using helical tomotherapy

Objective: To implement a carotid sparing protocol using helical Tomotherapy(HT) in T1N0 squamous-cell laryngeal carcinoma.Materials/Methods: Between July and August 2010, 7 men with stage T1N0 laryngeal carcinoma were included in this study. Age ranged from 47-74 years. Staging included endoscopic examination, CT-scan and MRI when indicated.Planned irradiation dose was 70 Gy in 35 fractions over 7 weeks. A simple treatment planning algorithm for carotidsparing was used: maximum point dose to the carotids 35 Gy, to the spinal cord 30 Gy, and 100% PTV volume to becovered with 95% of the prescribed dose. Carotid volume of interest extended to 1 cm above and below of the PTV.Doses to the carotid arteries, critical organs, and planned target volume (PTV) with our standard laryngealirradiation protocol was compared. Daily megavoltage scans were obtained before each fraction. When necessary, thePlanned Adaptive? software (TomoTherapy Inc., Madison, WI) was used to evaluate the need for a re-planning,which has never been indicated. Dose data were extracted using the VelocityAI software (Atlanta, GA), and datanormalization and dosevolume histogram (DVH) interpolation were realized using the Igor Pro software (Portland,OR).Results: A significant (p < 0.05) carotid dose sparing compared to our standard protocol with an average maximum point dose of 38.3 Gy (standard devaition [SD] 4.05 Gy), average mean dose of 18.59 Gy (SD 0.83 Gy) was achieved.In all patients, 95% of the carotid volume received less than 28.4 Gy (SD 0.98 Gy). The average maximum point doseto the spinal cord was 25.8 Gy (SD 3.24 Gy). PTV was fully covered with more than 95% of the prescribed dose forall patients with an average maximum point dose of 74.1 Gy and the absolute maximum dose in a single patient of75.2 Gy. To date, the clinical outcomes have been excellent. Three patients (42%) developed stage 1 mucositis that was conservatively managed, and all the patients presented a mild to moderate dysphonia. All adverse effectsresolved spontaneously in the month following the end of treatment. Early local control rate is 100% considering a 4-5months post treatment follow-up.Conclusions: HT allows a clinically significant decrease of carotid irradiation dose compared tostandard irradiation protocols with an acceptable spinal cord dose tradeoff. Moreover, this technique allows the PTV to be homogenously covered with a curative irradiation dose. Daily control imaging brings added security marginsespecially when working with high dose gradients. Further investigations and follow-up are underway to better evaluatethe late clinical outcomes especially the local control rate, late laryngeal and vascular toxicity, and expected potentialimpact on cerebrovascular events.

Secondary Cancer Risk for Stage I Seminoma Patients - a Comparison of Adjuvant Treatment Versus Surveillance

Background: Post-surgical management of stage I seminoma includes: surveillance with repeated CT-scans and treatment reserved for those who relapse, or adjuvant treatment with either immediate radiation therapy (RT) or carboplatin. The cancer specific survival is close to 100%. Cure without long-term sequelae of treatment is the aim. Our goal is to estimate the risk of radiation-induced secondary cancers (SC) death from for patients undergoing S, adjuvant RT or adjuvant carboplatin (AC).Materials and Methods: We measured organ doses from CT scans (3 phases each one) of a seminoma patient who was part of the active surveillance strategy and from a man undergoing adjuvant RT 20-Gy and a 30-Gy salvage RT treatment to the para-aortic area using helical Intensity Modulated RT (Tomotherapy®) with accurate delineation of organs at risk and a CTV to PTV expansion of 1 cm. Effective doses to organs in mSv were estimated according to the tissue-weighting factors recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection 103 (Ann ICRP 2007). We estimated SC incidence and mortality for a 10,000 people population based on the excess absolute risk model from the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII (Health Risk of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, NCR, The National Academies Press Washington, DC, 2006) assuming a seminoma diagnosis at age 30, a total life expectancy of 80 years.Results: The nominal risk for a fatal secondary cancers was calculated 1.5% for 15 abdominal CT scans, 14.8% for adjuvant RT (20 Gy paraaortic field) and 22.2% for salvage RT (30 Gy). The calculation assumed that the risk of relapse on surveillance and adjuvant AC was 15% and 4% respectively and that all patients were salvaged at relapse with RT. n CT abdomen/Pelvis = secondary cancer % RT Dose and % receiving treatment = secondary cancer % Total secondary cancer risk in % Active surveillance 15 = 1.5% 30 Gy in 15% of pts = 3.3% 4.8 Adjuvant carboplatin 7 = 0.7% 30 Gy in 4% of pts = 0.88% 1.58 Adjuvant radiotherapy 7 = 0.7% 20 Gy in 100% of pts = 14.8% 15.5Conclusions: These data suggest that: 1) Adjuvant radiotherapy is harmful and should not anymore be regarded as a standard option for seminoma stage I. 2) AC seems to be an option to reduce radiation induced cancers. Limitations: the study does not consider secondary cancers due to chemotherapy with AC (unknown). The use of BEIR VII for risk modeling with higher doses of RT needs to be validated.

Accuracy of out-of-field dose calculation of tomotherapy and cyberknife treatment planning systems: A dosimetric study.

PURPOSE: Late toxicities such as second cancer induction become more important as treatment outcome improves. Often the dose distribution calculated with a commercial treatment planning system (TPS) is used to estimate radiation carcinogenesis for the radiotherapy patient. However, for locations beyond the treatment field borders, the accuracy is not well known. The aim of this study was to perform detailed out-of-field-measurements for a typical radiotherapy treatment plan administered with a Cyberknife and a Tomotherapy machine and to compare the measurements to the predictions of the TPS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individually calibrated thermoluminescent dosimeters were used to measure absorbed dose in an anthropomorphic phantom at 184 locations. The measured dose distributions from 6 MV intensity-modulated treatment beams for CyberKnife and TomoTherapy machines were compared to the dose calculations from the TPS. RESULTS: The TPS are underestimating the dose far away from the target volume. Quantitatively the Cyberknife underestimates the dose at 40cm from the PTV border by a factor of 60, the Tomotherapy TPS by a factor of two. If a 50% dose uncertainty is accepted, the Cyberknife TPS can predict doses down to approximately 10 mGy/treatment Gy, the Tomotherapy-TPS down to 0.75 mGy/treatment Gy. The Cyberknife TPS can then be used up to 10cm from the PTV border the Tomotherapy up to 35cm. CONCLUSIONS: We determined that the Cyberknife and Tomotherapy TPS underestimate substantially the doses far away from the treated volume. It is recommended not to use out-of-field doses from the Cyberknife TPS for applications like modeling of second cancer induction. The Tomotherapy TPS can be used up to 35cm from the PTV border (for a 390 cm(3) large PTV).

Carotid sparing in t1-t2 no glottic cancer using helical tomotherapy

Objective: To study the dosimetric properties and clinical implementation of a carotid dose sparing irradiation protocol using helical Tomotherapy in early stage laryngeal cancer.Materials and Methods: We have developed a simple treatment planning algorithm for carotid sparing. We have compared carotid and critical organ doses and planned target volume (PTV) dose with our standard laryngeal irradiation protocol. Dose constraints were the following: maximum point dose to the carotids <35 Gy, to the spinal cord <30 Gy, and PTV was covered at >95% of the prescribed dose (70 Gy in 2 Gy per fraction). A daily megavoltage CT was done to account for patient movement and anatomy modification. To date, 7 patients have been treated with this protocol in our department.Results: Our early results showed a significant reduction in the carotid dose with an average maximum dose of 35.8 Gy. The average maximum spinal cord dose was 25.8 Gy. PTV was covered without important "hot spots". Average maximum dose in the PTV was 74.1 Gy with an average absolute maximum dose of 75.2 Gy. To date, the clinical outcomes have been excellent.Conclusion: Helical Tomotherapy allows a significant decrease of carotid dose without dangerous spinal cord overdose. There was no important overdose in the PTV that can potentially increase the late complication risks. Daily control imaging brings added security especially when working with such high-dose gradients. We think further studies and longer follow-up are needed to investigate the clinical outcomes such as the local control rate and the vascular late toxicities.

The reasons for discrepancies in target volume delineation: a SASRO study on head-and-neck and prostate cancer

But : comprendre les raisons des divergences observées dans le tracé des volumes cibles entre radio-oncologues. Matériel et méthodes : 18 centres suisses de radio-oncologie ont été invités à tracer les volumes pour un cas de cancer de la prostate et pour un cas de cancer de la sphère ORL. Nous avons également envoyé un questionnaire pour évaluer d'une part les différences dans la définition- des volumes (GTV [ gross tumor volume= volume tumoral macroscopique ], CTV [clinical tumor volume= volume de la tumeur clinique, macroscopique et microscopique], PTV [planning target volume= volume cible pour la planification], et d'autre part des variations dans les marges appliquées et les ganglions considérés à risque. Pour chaque centre, on a calculé la corrélation entre les marges qui ont été dessinées et celles qui ont été annoncées. Nous avons inclus dans le questionnaire une série de questions non spécifiques pour évaluer les méthodes de planification utilisées dans les différents centres. Résultats : Dans les 2 situations cliniques, on a mis en évidence de relativement grandes différences tant au niveau des volumes dessinés par les différents centres que dans leur définition des volumes. La corrélation entre les marges dessinées et définies était assez correcte dans le cas de la prostate mais médiocre dans le cas ORL. Le questionnaire a révélé d'importantes différences dans les méthodes de planification utilisées par les centres. Conclusion : Ces grandes différences peuvent être expliquées par, (1) une connaissance/interprétation variable des définitions ICRU, (2) des appréciations différentes de l'extension tumorale microscopique potentielle, (3) des difficultés dans l'identification du GTV, (4) des différences de concept, et (5) des différences entre la théorie (par ex. la description des marges) et la pratiqué (par ex. les marges dessinées).

Helical tomotherapy in the treatment of anal canal cancer: 3-year clinical experience

Objective: To report a single-center experience treating patients with squamous- cell carcinoma of the anal canal using helical Tomotherapy (HT) and concurrent chemotherapy (CT).Materials/Methods: From October 2007 to February 2011, 55 patients were treated with HT and concurrent CT (5-fluorouracil/capecitabin and mitomycin) for anal squamous-cell carcinoma. All patients underwent computed- tomography-based treatment planning, with pelvic and inguinal nodes receiving 36 Gy in 1.8 Gy/fraction. Following a planned 1-week break, primary tumor site and involved nodes were boosted to a total dose 59.4 Gy in 1.8 Gy/fraction. Dose-volume histograms of several organs at risk (OAR; bladder, small intestine, rectum, femoral heads, penile bulb, external genitalia) were assessed in terms of conformal avoidance. All toxicity was scored according to the CTCAE, v.3.0. HT plans and treatment were implemented using the Tomotherapy, Inc. software and hardware. For dosimetric comparisons, 3D RT and/or IMRT plans were also computed for some of the patients using the CMS planning system, for treatment with 6-18 MV photons and/or electrons with suitable energies from a Siemens Primus linear accelerator equipped with a multileaf collimator.Locoregional control and survival curves were compared with the log-rank test, and multivariate analysis by the Cox model.Results: With 360-degree-of-freedom beam projection, HT has an advantage over other RT techniques (3D or 5-field step-and-shot IMRT). There is significant improvement over 3D or 5-field IMRT plans in terms of dose conformity around the PTV, and dose gradients are steeper outside the target volume, resulting in reduced doses to OARs. Using HT, acute toxicity was acceptable, and seemed to be better than historical standards.Conclusions: Our results suggest that HT combined with concurrent CT for anal cancer is effective and tolerable. Compared to 3D RT or 5-field step-andshot IMRT, there is better conformity around the PTV, and better OAR sparing.

[(18)F]Fluoroethyltyrosine- positron emission tomography-guided radiotherapy for high-grade glioma.

BACKGROUND: To compare morphological gross tumor volumes (GTVs), defined as pre- and postoperative gadolinium enhancement on T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging to biological tumor volumes (BTVs), defined by the uptake of (18)F fluoroethyltyrosine (FET) for the radiotherapy planning of high-grade glioma, using a dedicated positron emission tomography (PET)-CT scanner equipped with three triangulation lasers for patient positioning. METHODS: Nineteen patients with malignant glioma were included into a prospective protocol using FET PET-CT for radiotherapy planning. To be eligible, patients had to present with residual disease after surgery. Planning was performed using the clinical target volume (CTV = GTV union or logical sum BTV) and planning target volume (PTV = CTV + 20 mm). First, the interrater reliability for BTV delineation was assessed among three observers. Second, the BTV and GTV were quantified and compared. Finally, the geometrical relationships between GTV and BTV were assessed. RESULTS: Interrater agreement for BTV delineation was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.9). Although, BTVs and GTVs were not significantly different (p = 0.9), CTVs (mean 57.8 +/- 30.4 cm(3)) were significantly larger than BTVs (mean 42.1 +/- 24.4 cm(3); p < 0.01) or GTVs (mean 38.7 +/- 25.7 cm(3); p < 0.01). In 13 (68%) and 6 (32%) of 19 patients, FET uptake extended >or= 10 and 20 mm from the margin of the gadolinium enhancement. CONCLUSION: Using FET, the interrater reliability had excellent agreement for BTV delineation. With FET PET-CT planning, the size and geometrical location of GTVs and BTVs differed in a majority of patients.

Multi institutional phase II study of concomitant stereotactic reirradiation and cetuximab for recurrent head and neck cancer.

PURPOSE: Recurrent head and neck cancer is associated to a poor survival prognosis. A high toxicity rate is demonstrated when surgery and/or radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy are combined. Furthermore, the duration of treatment is often not ethically compatible with the expected survival (median survival<1year). Normal tissues tolerance limits the use of reirradiation and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) could offer precise irradiation while sparing healthy tissues. After completion of a feasibility study, results of a multicentric study (Lille, Nancy & Nice) using SBRT with cetuximab are reported. The aim of the study was to deliver non toxic short course SBRT (2weeks) in order to get the same local control as the one demonstrated with longer protocols. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with inoperable recurrent, or new primary tumor in a previously irradiated area, were included (WHO<3). Reirradiation (RT) dose was 36Gy in six fractions of 6Gy to the 85% isodose line covering 95% of the PTV with 5 injections of concomitant cetuximab (CT). All patients had previous radiotherapy, 85% had previous surgery and 48% previous chemotherapy. RESULTS: Between 11/2007 and 08/2010, 60 were included (46 men and 14 women), 56 received CT+RT, 3 were not treated and 1 received only CT. Median age was 60 (42-87)) and all 56 patients had squamous carcinoma and received concomitant cetuximab. Mean time between previous radiotherapy and the start of SBRT was 38months. Cutaneous toxicity was observed for 41 patients. There was one toxic death from hemorrhage and denutrition. Median follow-up was 11.4months. At 3months, response rate was 58.4% (95% CI: 43.2-72.4%) and disease control rate was 91.7% (95% CI: 80.0-97.7%). The one-year OS rate was 47.5% (95% CI: 30.8-62.4). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that short SBRT with cetuximab is an effective salvage treatment with good response rate in this poor prognosis population with previously irradiated HNC. Treatment is feasible and, with appropriate care to limiting critical structure, acute toxicities are acceptable. This combination may be the reference treatment is this population.

Développement et validation d'une méthode de calcul indépendant des unités moniteur basée sur les simulations Monte Carlo pour la vérification des traitements IMRT

Résumé : La radiothérapie par modulation d'intensité (IMRT) est une technique de traitement qui utilise des faisceaux dont la fluence de rayonnement est modulée. L'IMRT, largement utilisée dans les pays industrialisés, permet d'atteindre une meilleure homogénéité de la dose à l'intérieur du volume cible et de réduire la dose aux organes à risque. Une méthode usuelle pour réaliser pratiquement la modulation des faisceaux est de sommer de petits faisceaux (segments) qui ont la même incidence. Cette technique est appelée IMRT step-and-shoot. Dans le contexte clinique, il est nécessaire de vérifier les plans de traitement des patients avant la première irradiation. Cette question n'est toujours pas résolue de manière satisfaisante. En effet, un calcul indépendant des unités moniteur (représentatif de la pondération des chaque segment) ne peut pas être réalisé pour les traitements IMRT step-and-shoot, car les poids des segments ne sont pas connus à priori, mais calculés au moment de la planification inverse. Par ailleurs, la vérification des plans de traitement par comparaison avec des mesures prend du temps et ne restitue pas la géométrie exacte du traitement. Dans ce travail, une méthode indépendante de calcul des plans de traitement IMRT step-and-shoot est décrite. Cette méthode est basée sur le code Monte Carlo EGSnrc/BEAMnrc, dont la modélisation de la tête de l'accélérateur linéaire a été validée dans une large gamme de situations. Les segments d'un plan de traitement IMRT sont simulés individuellement dans la géométrie exacte du traitement. Ensuite, les distributions de dose sont converties en dose absorbée dans l'eau par unité moniteur. La dose totale du traitement dans chaque élément de volume du patient (voxel) peut être exprimée comme une équation matricielle linéaire des unités moniteur et de la dose par unité moniteur de chacun des faisceaux. La résolution de cette équation est effectuée par l'inversion d'une matrice à l'aide de l'algorithme dit Non-Negative Least Square fit (NNLS). L'ensemble des voxels contenus dans le volume patient ne pouvant être utilisés dans le calcul pour des raisons de limitations informatiques, plusieurs possibilités de sélection ont été testées. Le meilleur choix consiste à utiliser les voxels contenus dans le Volume Cible de Planification (PTV). La méthode proposée dans ce travail a été testée avec huit cas cliniques représentatifs des traitements habituels de radiothérapie. Les unités moniteur obtenues conduisent à des distributions de dose globale cliniquement équivalentes à celles issues du logiciel de planification des traitements. Ainsi, cette méthode indépendante de calcul des unités moniteur pour l'IMRT step-andshootest validée pour une utilisation clinique. Par analogie, il serait possible d'envisager d'appliquer une méthode similaire pour d'autres modalités de traitement comme par exemple la tomothérapie. Abstract : Intensity Modulated RadioTherapy (IMRT) is a treatment technique that uses modulated beam fluence. IMRT is now widespread in more advanced countries, due to its improvement of dose conformation around target volume, and its ability to lower doses to organs at risk in complex clinical cases. One way to carry out beam modulation is to sum smaller beams (beamlets) with the same incidence. This technique is called step-and-shoot IMRT. In a clinical context, it is necessary to verify treatment plans before the first irradiation. IMRT Plan verification is still an issue for this technique. Independent monitor unit calculation (representative of the weight of each beamlet) can indeed not be performed for IMRT step-and-shoot, because beamlet weights are not known a priori, but calculated by inverse planning. Besides, treatment plan verification by comparison with measured data is time consuming and performed in a simple geometry, usually in a cubic water phantom with all machine angles set to zero. In this work, an independent method for monitor unit calculation for step-and-shoot IMRT is described. This method is based on the Monte Carlo code EGSnrc/BEAMnrc. The Monte Carlo model of the head of the linear accelerator is validated by comparison of simulated and measured dose distributions in a large range of situations. The beamlets of an IMRT treatment plan are calculated individually by Monte Carlo, in the exact geometry of the treatment. Then, the dose distributions of the beamlets are converted in absorbed dose to water per monitor unit. The dose of the whole treatment in each volume element (voxel) can be expressed through a linear matrix equation of the monitor units and dose per monitor unit of every beamlets. This equation is solved by a Non-Negative Least Sqvare fif algorithm (NNLS). However, not every voxels inside the patient volume can be used in order to solve this equation, because of computer limitations. Several ways of voxel selection have been tested and the best choice consists in using voxels inside the Planning Target Volume (PTV). The method presented in this work was tested with eight clinical cases, which were representative of usual radiotherapy treatments. The monitor units obtained lead to clinically equivalent global dose distributions. Thus, this independent monitor unit calculation method for step-and-shoot IMRT is validated and can therefore be used in a clinical routine. It would be possible to consider applying a similar method for other treatment modalities, such as for instance tomotherapy or volumetric modulated arc therapy.