A method for automated generation of radiotherapy treatment plans for lung cancer

La radioterapia è una tecnica molto impiegata per la cura del cancro. Attualmente la somministrazione avviene principalmente attraverso la intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT, sovrapposizione di campi ad intensità modulata), un cui sviluppo recente è la volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT, irradiazione continua lungo un arco ininterrotto). La generazione di piani richiede esperienza ed abilità: un dosimetrista seleziona cost functions ed obiettivi ed un TPS ottimizza la disposizione dei segmenti ad intensità modulata. Se il medico giudica il risultato non soddisfacente, il processo riparte da capo (trial-and-error). Una alternativa è la generazione automatica di piani. Erasmus-iCycle, software prodotto presso ErasmusMC (Rotterdam, The Netherlands), è un algoritmo di ottimizzazione multicriteriale di piani radioterapici per ottimizzazione di intensità basato su una wish list. L'output consiste di piani Pareto-ottimali ad intensità modulata. La generazione automatica garantisce maggiore coerenza e qualità più elevata con tempi di lavoro ridotti. Nello studio, una procedura di generazione automatica di piani con modalità VMAT è stata sviluppata e valutata per carcinoma polmonare. Una wish list è stata generata attraverso una procedura iterativa su un gruppo ristretto di pazienti con la collaborazione di fisici medici ed oncologi e poi validata su un gruppo più ampio di pazienti. Nella grande maggioranza dei casi, i piani automatici sono stati giudicati dagli oncologi migliori rispetto ai rispettivi piani IMRT clinici generati manualmente. Solo in pochi casi una rapida calibrazione manuale specifica per il paziente si è resa necessaria per soddisfare tutti i requisiti clinici. Per un sottogruppo di pazienti si è mostrato che la qualità dei piani VMAT automatici era equivalente o superiore rispetto ai piani VMAT generati manualmente da un dosimetrista esperto. Complessivamente, si è dimostrata la possibilità di generare piani radioterapici VMAT ad alta qualità automaticamente, con interazione umana minima. L'introduzione clinica della procedura automatica presso ErasmusMC è iniziata (ottobre 2015).

High-dose (80 Gy) intensity-modulated radiation therapy with daily image-guidance as primary treatment for localized prostate cancer

to report acute and late toxicity in prostate cancer patients treated by high-dose intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with daily image-guidance.

Urethral toxicity vs. cancer control-Lessons to be learned from high-dose rate brachytherapy combined with intensity-modulated radiation therapy in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer

To describe biochemical relapse-free survival (BRFS) and late toxicity after combined high-dose rate brachytherapy (HDR-B) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer patients.

Acute and late toxicity in prostate cancer patients treated by dose escalated intensity modulated radiation therapy and organ tracking

BACKGROUND: To report acute and late toxicity in prostate cancer patients treated by dose escalated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and organ tracking. METHODS: From 06/2004 to 12/2005 39 men were treated by 80 Gy IMRT along with organ tracking. Median age was 69 years, risk of recurrence was low 18%, intermediate 21% and high in 61% patients. Hormone therapy (HT) was received by 74% of patients. Toxicity was scored according to the CTC scale version 3.0. Median follow-up (FU) was 29 months. RESULTS: Acute and maximal late grade 2 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity was 3% and 8%, late grade 2 GI toxicity dropped to 0% at the end of FU. No acute or late grade 3 GI toxicity was observed. Grade 2 and 3 pre-treatment genitourinary (GU) morbidity (PGUM) was 20% and 5%. Acute and maximal late grade 2 GU toxicity was 56% and 28% and late grade 2 GU toxicity decreased to 15% of patients at the end of FU. Acute and maximal late grade 3 GU toxicity was 8% and 3%, respectively. Decreased late > or = grade 2 GU toxicity free survival was associated with higher age (P = .025), absence of HT (P = .016) and higher PGUM (P < .001). DISCUSSION: GI toxicity rates after IMRT and organ tracking are excellent, GU toxicity rates are strongly related to PGUM.

Assessment of Collimator Jaw Optimization in Reducing Normal Tissue Irradiation with Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy

Purpose: To evaluate normal tissue dose reduction in step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) on the Varian 2100 platform by tracking the multileaf collimator (MLC) apertures with the accelerator jaws. Methods: Clinical radiation treatment plans for 10 thoracic, 3 pediatric and 3 head and neck patients were converted to plans with the jaws tracking each segment’s MLC apertures. Each segment was then renormalized to account for the change in collimator scatter to obtain target coverage within 1% of that in the original plan. The new plans were compared to the original plans in a commercial radiation treatment planning system (TPS). Reduction in normal tissue dose was evaluated in the new plan by using the parameters V5, V10, and V20 in the cumulative dose-volume histogram for the following structures: total lung minus GTV (gross target volume), heart, esophagus, spinal cord, liver, parotids, and brainstem. In order to validate the accuracy of our beam model, MLC transmission measurements were made and compared to those predicted by the TPS. Results: The greatest change between the original plan and new plan occurred at lower dose levels. The reduction in V20 was never more than 6.3% and was typically less than 1% for all patients. The reduction in V5 was 16.7% maximum and was typically less than 3% for all patients. The variation in normal tissue dose reduction was not predictable, and we found no clear parameters that indicated which patients would benefit most from jaw tracking. Our TPS model of MLC transmission agreed with measurements with absolute transmission differences of less than 0.1 % and thus uncertainties in the model did not contribute significantly to the uncertainty in the dose determination. Conclusion: The amount of dose reduction achieved by collimating the jaws around each MLC aperture in step-and-shoot IMRT does not appear to be clinically significant.

EVALUATION OF INTENSITY MODULATED RADIATION THERAPY (IMRT) DELIVERY ERROR DUE TO IMRT TREATMENT PLAN COMPLEXITY AND IMPROPERLY MATCHED DOSIMETRY DATA

Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is a technique that delivers a highly conformal dose distribution to a target volume while attempting to maximally spare the surrounding normal tissues. IMRT is a common treatment modality used for treating head and neck (H&N) cancers, and the presence of many critical structures in this region requires accurate treatment delivery. The Radiological Physics Center (RPC) acts as both a remote and on-site quality assurance agency that credentials institutions participating in clinical trials. To date, about 30% of all IMRT participants have failed the RPC’s remote audit using the IMRT H&N phantom. The purpose of this project is to evaluate possible causes of H&N IMRT delivery errors observed by the RPC, specifically IMRT treatment plan complexity and the use of improper dosimetry data from machines that were thought to be matched but in reality were not. Eight H&N IMRT plans with a range of complexity defined by total MU (1460-3466), number of segments (54-225), and modulation complexity scores (MCS) (0.181-0.609) were created in Pinnacle v.8m. These plans were delivered to the RPC’s H&N phantom on a single Varian Clinac. One of the IMRT plans (1851 MU, 88 segments, and MCS=0.469) was equivalent to the median H&N plan from 130 previous RPC H&N phantom irradiations. This average IMRT plan was also delivered on four matched Varian Clinac machines and the dose distribution calculated using a different 6MV beam model. Radiochromic film and TLD within the phantom were used to analyze the dose profiles and absolute doses, respectively. The measured and calculated were compared to evaluate the dosimetric accuracy. All deliveries met the RPC acceptance criteria of ±7% absolute dose difference and 4 mm distance-to-agreement (DTA). Additionally, gamma index analysis was performed for all deliveries using a ±7%/4mm and ±5%/3mm criteria. Increasing the treatment plan complexity by varying the MU, number of segments, or varying the MCS resulted in no clear trend toward an increase in dosimetric error determined by the absolute dose difference, DTA, or gamma index. Varying the delivery machines as well as the beam model (use of a Clinac 6EX 6MV beam model vs. Clinac 21EX 6MV model), also did not show any clear trend towards an increased dosimetric error using the same criteria indicated above.

Novel radiotherapy techniques for involved-field and involved-node treatment of mediastinal Hodgkin lymphoma: when should they be considered and which questions remain open?

PURPOSE Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is a highly curable disease. Reducing late complications and second malignancies has become increasingly important. Radiotherapy target paradigms are currently changing and radiotherapy techniques are evolving rapidly. DESIGN This overview reports to what extent target volume reduction in involved-node (IN) and advanced radiotherapy techniques, such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and proton therapy-compared with involved-field (IF) and 3D radiotherapy (3D-RT)- can reduce high doses to organs at risk (OAR) and examines the issues that still remain open. RESULTS Although no comparison of all available techniques on identical patient datasets exists, clear patterns emerge. Advanced dose-calculation algorithms (e.g., convolution-superposition/Monte Carlo) should be used in mediastinal HL. INRT consistently reduces treated volumes when compared with IFRT with the exact amount depending on the INRT definition. The number of patients that might significantly benefit from highly conformal techniques such as IMRT over 3D-RT regarding high-dose exposure to organs at risk (OAR) is smaller with INRT. The impact of larger volumes treated with low doses in advanced techniques is unclear. The type of IMRT used (static/rotational) is of minor importance. All advanced photon techniques result in similar potential benefits and disadvantages, therefore only the degree-of-modulation should be chosen based on individual treatment goals. Treatment in deep inspiration breath hold is being evaluated. Protons theoretically provide both excellent high-dose conformality and reduced integral dose. CONCLUSION Further reduction of treated volumes most effectively reduces OAR dose, most likely without disadvantages if the excellent control rates achieved currently are maintained. For both IFRT and INRT, the benefits of advanced radiotherapy techniques depend on the individual patient/target geometry. Their use should therefore be decided case by case with comparative treatment planning.

Multimodal treatment for high-risk prostate cancer with high-dose intensity-modulated radiation therapy preceded or not by radical prostatectomy, concurrent intensified-dose docetaxel and long-term androgen deprivation therapy: results of a prospective phase II trial.

BACKGROUND The optimal management of high-risk prostate cancer remains uncertain. In this study we assessed the safety and efficacy of a novel multimodal treatment paradigm for high-risk prostate cancer. METHODS This was a prospective phase II trial including 35 patients with newly diagnosed high-risk localized or locally advanced prostate cancer treated with high-dose intensity-modulated radiation therapy preceded or not by radical prostatectomy, concurrent intensified-dose docetaxel-based chemotherapy and long-term androgen deprivation therapy. Primary endpoint was acute and late toxicity evaluated with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0. Secondary endpoint was biochemical and clinical recurrence-free survival explored with the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS Acute gastro-intestinal and genito-urinary toxicity was grade 2 in 23% and 20% of patients, and grade 3 in 9% and 3% of patients, respectively. Acute blood/bone marrow toxicity was grade 2 in 20% of patients. No acute grade ≥ 4 toxicity was observed. Late gastro-intestinal and genito-urinary toxicity was grade 2 in 9% of patients each. No late grade ≥ 3 toxicity was observed. Median follow-up was 63 months (interquartile range 31-79). Actuarial 5-year biochemical and clinical recurrence-free survival rate was 55% (95% confidence interval, 35-75%) and 70% (95% confidence interval, 52-88%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS In our phase II trial testing a novel multimodal treatment paradigm for high-risk prostate cancer, toxicity was acceptably low and mid-term oncological outcome was good. This treatment paradigm, thus, may warrant further evaluation in phase III randomized trials.

Consensus and differences in primary radiotherapy for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer in Switzerland: A survey on patterns of practice

INTRODUCTION External beam radiotherapy (EBRT), with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), is an established treatment option for nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Despite high-level evidence from several randomized trials, risk group stratification and treatment recommendations vary due to contradictory or inconclusive data, particularly with regard to EBRT dose prescription and ADT duration. Our aim was to investigate current patterns of practice in primary EBRT for prostate cancer in Switzerland. MATERIALS AND METHODS Treatment recommendations on EBRT and ADT for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer were collected from 23 Swiss radiation oncology centers. Written recommendations were converted into center-specific decision trees, and analyzed for consensus and differences using a dedicated software tool. Additionally, specific radiotherapy planning and delivery techniques from the participating centers were assessed. RESULTS The most commonly prescribed radiation dose was 78 Gy (range 70-80 Gy) across all risk groups. ADT was recommended for intermediate-risk patients for 6 months in over 80 % of the centers, and for high-risk patients for 2 or 3 years in over 90 % of centers. For recommendations on combined EBRT and ADT treatment, consensus levels did not exceed 39 % in any clinical scenario. Arc-based intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is implemented for routine prostate cancer radiotherapy by 96 % of the centers. CONCLUSION Among Swiss radiation oncology centers, considerable ranges of radiotherapy dose and ADT duration are routinely offered for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer. In the vast majority of cases, doses and durations are within the range of those described in current evidence-based guidelines.

Dose-painting intensity-modulated proton therapy for intermediate- and high-risk meningioma.

BACKGROUND Newly diagnosed WHO grade II-III or any WHO grade recurrent meningioma exhibit an aggressive behavior and thus are considered as high- or intermediate risk tumors. Given the unsatisfactory rates of disease control and survival after primary or adjuvant radiation therapy, optimization of treatment strategies is needed. We investigated the potential of dose-painting intensity-modulated proton beam-therapy (IMPT) for intermediate- and high-risk meningioma. MATERIAL AND METHODS Imaging data from five patients undergoing proton beam-therapy were used. The dose-painting target was defined using [68]Ga-[1,4,7,10-tetraazacyclododecane tetraacetic acid]- d-Phe(1),Tyr(3)-octreotate ([68]Ga-DOTATATE)-positron emission tomography (PET) in target delineation. IMPT and photon intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment plans were generated for each patient using an in-house developed treatment planning system (TPS) supporting spot-scanning technology and a commercial TPS, respectively. Doses of 66 Gy (2.2 Gy/fraction) and 54 Gy (1.8 Gy/fraction) were prescribed to the PET-based planning target volume (PTVPET) and the union of PET- and anatomical imaging-based PTV, respectively, in 30 fractions, using simultaneous integrated boost. RESULTS Dose coverage of the PTVsPET was equally good or slightly better in IMPT plans: dose inhomogeneity was 10 ± 3% in the IMPT plans vs. 13 ± 1% in the IMRT plans (p = 0.33). The brain Dmean and brainstem D50 were small in the IMPT plans: 26.5 ± 1.5 Gy(RBE) and 0.002 ± 0.0 Gy(RBE), respectively, vs. 29.5 ± 1.5 Gy (p = 0.001) and 7.5 ± 11.1 Gy (p = 0.02) for the IMRT plans, respectively. The doses delivered to the optic structures were also decreased with IMPT. CONCLUSIONS Dose-painting IMPT is technically feasible using currently available planning tools and resulted in dose conformity of the dose-painted target comparable to IMRT with a significant reduction of radiation dose delivered to the brain, brainstem and optic apparatus. Dose escalation with IMPT may improve tumor control and decrease radiation-induced toxicity.

Proton therapy versus intensity modulated x-ray therapy in the treatment of prostate cancer: Estimating secondary cancer risks

External beam radiation therapy is used to treat nearly half of the more than 200,000 new cases of prostate cancer diagnosed in the United States each year. During a radiation therapy treatment, healthy tissues in the path of the therapeutic beam are exposed to high doses. In addition, the whole body is exposed to a low-dose bath of unwanted scatter radiation from the pelvis and leakage radiation from the treatment unit. As a result, survivors of radiation therapy for prostate cancer face an elevated risk of developing a radiogenic second cancer. Recently, proton therapy has been shown to reduce the dose delivered by the therapeutic beam to normal tissues during treatment compared to intensity modulated x-ray therapy (IMXT, the current standard of care). However, the magnitude of stray radiation doses from proton therapy, and their impact on this incidence of radiogenic second cancers, was not known. ^ The risk of a radiogenic second cancer following proton therapy for prostate cancer relative to IMXT was determined for 3 patients of large, median, and small anatomical stature. Doses delivered to healthy tissues from the therapeutic beam were obtained from treatment planning system calculations. Stray doses from IMXT were taken from the literature, while stray doses from proton therapy were simulated using a Monte Carlo model of a passive scattering treatment unit and an anthropomorphic phantom. Baseline risk models were taken from the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII report. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to characterize the uncertainty of risk calculations to uncertainties in the risk model, the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of neutrons for carcinogenesis, and inter-patient anatomical variations. ^ The risk projections revealed that proton therapy carries a lower risk for radiogenic second cancer incidence following prostate irradiation compared to IMXT. The sensitivity analysis revealed that the results of the risk analysis depended only weakly on uncertainties in the risk model and inter-patient variations. Second cancer risks were sensitive to changes in the RBE of neutrons. However, the findings of the study were qualitatively consistent for all patient sizes and risk models considered, and for all neutron RBE values less than 100. ^

Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Evaluation with the Radiological Physics Center Head and Neck Phantom

Validation of treatment plan quality and dose calculation accuracy is essential for new radiotherapy techniques, including volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). VMAT delivers intensity modulated radiotherapy treatments while simultaneously rotating the gantry, adding an additional level of complexity to both the dose calculation and delivery of VMAT treatments compared to static gantry IMRT. The purpose of this project was to compare two VMAT systems, Elekta VMAT and Varian RapidArc, to the current standard of care, IMRT, in terms of both treatment plan quality and dosimetric delivery accuracy using the Radiological Physics Center (RPC) head and neck (H&N) phantom. Clinically relevant treatment plans were created for the phantom using typical prescription and dose constraints for Elekta VMAT (planned with Pinnacle3 Smart Arc) and RapidArc and IMRT (both planned with Eclipse). The treatment plans were evaluated to determine if they were clinically comparable using several dosimetric criteria, including ability to meet dose objectives, hot spots, conformity index, and homogeneity index. The planned treatments were delivered to the phantom and absolute doses and relative dose distributions were measured with thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and radiochromic film, respectively. The measured and calculated doses of each treatment were compared to determine if they were clinically acceptable based upon RPC criteria of ±7% dose difference and 4 mm distance-to-agreement. Gamma analysis was used to assess dosimetric accuracy, as well. All treatment plans were able to meet the dosimetric objectives set by the RPC and had similar hot spots in the normal tissue. The Elekta VMAT plan was more homogenous but less conformal than the RapidArc and IMRT plans. When comparing the measured and calculated doses, all plans met the RPC ±7%/4 mm criteria. The percent of points passing the gamma analysis for each treatment delivery was acceptable. Treatment plan quality of the Elekta VMAT, RapidArc and IMRT treatments were comparable for consistent dose prescriptions and constraints. Additionally, the dosimetric accuracy of the Elekta VMAT and RapidArc treatments was verified to be within acceptable tolerances.

Valutazione dosimetrica e aspetti tecnici di trattamenti VMAT (Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy) in radioterapia oncologica

La VMAT (Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy) è una delle più recenti tecniche radioterapiche, in cui, oltre alla modulazione geometrica della fluenza del campo di radiazione come avviene nell’IMRT (Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy), sono variati durante il trattamento anche la velocità del gantry e il rateo di dose. La radiazione è erogata senza interruzioni lungo uno o più archi continui della testata dell’acceleratore, così da ridurre i tempi di trattamento in modo sostanziale rispetto all’IMRT. Nelle tecniche ad intensità modulata, ed in particolare nella VMAT, il lettino porta paziente modifica la distribuzione di dose durante gli irraggiamenti posteriori, riducendo quella al target e aumentando quella superficiale. Il presente lavoro di tesi, che ha proprio l’obiettivo di valutare questi aspetti dosimetrici in un’ottica pre-clinica, è stato svolto presso il Servizio di Fisica Sanitaria del Policlinico S.Orsola–Malpighi, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna. Le misure sono state effettuate presso le U.O. Radioterapia-Morganti e Radioterapia-Frezza f.f. della medesima Azienda Sanitaria, al fine di caratterizzare dal punto di vista dosimetrico il lettino di trattamento iBEAM evo dell’acceleratore lineare Synergy Elekta. L’attenuazione misurata in caso di incidenza perpendicolare del fascio sul lettino, in buon accordo con gli articoli di riferimento, è stata: (2.81±0.06)% per fotoni di energia di 6 MV, (1.81±0.10)% a 10 MV e (1.38±0.05)% a 15 MV. L’attenuazione massima misurata con fotoni di energia di 6 MV si è avvicinata al 4% negli irraggiamenti obliqui. Infine, è stato analizzato il confronto con statistica gamma fra distribuzione di dose pianificata e misurata prima e dopo aver modellizzato le caratteristiche del lettino nel software per l’elaborazione del piano di trattamento. Solo dopo tale operazione, i due casi VMAT analizzati (tumore dell’orofaringe e prostatico) superano i criteri più restrittivi e affidabili utilizzati nella pratica clinica.

A snapshot of radiation therapy techniques and technology in Queensland : an aid to mapping undergraduate curriculum

Introduction: Undergraduate students studying the Bachelor of Radiation Therapy at Queensland University of Technology (QUT) attend clinical placements in a number of department sites across Queensland. To ensure that the curriculum prepares students for the most common treatments and current techniques in use in these departments, a curriculum matching exercise was performed. Methods: A cross-sectional census was performed on a pre-determined “Snapshot” date in 2012. This was undertaken by the clinical education staff in each department who used a standardized proforma to count the number of patients as well as prescription, equipment, and technique data for a list of tumour site categories. This information was combined into aggregate anonymized data. Results: All 12 Queensland radiation therapy clinical sites participated in the Snapshot data collection exercise to produce a comprehensive overview of clinical practice on the chosen day. A total of 59 different tumour sites were treated on the chosen day and as expected the most common treatment sites were prostate and breast, comprising 46% of patients treated. Data analysis also indicated that intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) use is relatively high with 19.6% of patients receiving IMRT treatment on the chosen day. Both IMRT and image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) indications matched recommendations from the evidence. Conclusion: The Snapshot method proved to be a feasible and efficient method of gathering useful

Verification of patient position and delivery of IMRT by electronic portal imaging

Background and purpose: The purpose of the work presented in this paper was to determine whether patient positioning and delivery errors could be detected using electronic portal images of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Patients and methods: We carried out a series of controlled experiments delivering an IMRT beam to a humanoid phantom using both the dynamic and multiple static field method of delivery. The beams were imaged, the images calibrated to remove the IMRT fluence variation and then compared with calibrated images of the reference beams without any delivery or position errors. The first set of experiments involved translating the position of the phantom both laterally and in a superior/inferior direction a distance of 1, 2, 5 and 10 mm. The phantom was also rotated 1 and 28. For the second set of measurements the phantom position was kept fixed and delivery errors were introduced to the beam. The delivery errors took the form of leaf position and segment intensity errors. Results: The method was able to detect shifts in the phantom position of 1 mm, leaf position errors of 2 mm, and dosimetry errors of 10% on a single segment of a 15 segment IMRT step and shoot delivery (significantly less than 1% of the total dose). Conclusions: The results of this work have shown that the method of imaging the IMRT beam and calibrating the images to remove the intensity modulations could be a useful tool in verifying both the patient position and the delivery of the beam.