Salvage whole brain radiotherapy or stereotactic radiosurgery after initial stereotactic radiosurgery for 1-4 brain metastases.

Patients with limited brain metastases are often candidates for stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) or whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT). Among patients who receive SRS, the likelihood and timing of salvage WBRT or SRS remains unclear. We examined rates of salvage WBRT or SRS among 180 patients with 1-4 newly diagnosed brain metastases who received index SRS from 2008-2013. Competing risks multivariable analysis was used to examine factors associated with time to WBRT. Patients had non-small cell lung (53 %), melanoma (23 %), breast (10 %), renal (6 %), or other (8 %) cancers. Median age was 62 years. Patients received index SRS to 1 (60 %), 2 (21 %), 3 (13 %), or 4 (7 %) brain metastases. Median survival after SRS was 9.7 months (range, 0.3-67.6 months). No further brain-directed radiotherapy was delivered after index SRS in 55 % of patients. Twenty-seven percent of patients ever received salvage WBRT, and 30 % ever received salvage SRS; 12 % of patients received both salvage WBRT and salvage SRS. Median time to salvage WBRT or salvage SRS were 5.6 and 6.1 months, respectively. Age ≤60 years (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] = 2.80; 95 % CI 1.05-7.51; P = 0.04) and controlled/absent extracranial disease (AHR = 6.76; 95 % CI 1.60-28.7; P = 0.01) were associated with shorter time to salvage WBRT. Isolated brain progression caused death in only 11 % of decedents. In summary, most patients with 1-4 brain metastases receiving SRS never require salvage WBRT or SRS, and the remainder do not require salvage treatment for a median of 6 months.

Local control after fractionated stereotactic radiation therapy for brain metastases.

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is frequently used in the management of brain metastases, but concerns over potential toxicity limit applications for larger lesions or those in eloquent areas. Fractionated stereotactic radiation therapy (SRT) is often substituted for SRS in these cases. We retrospectively analyzed the efficacy and toxicity outcomes of patients who received SRT at our institution. Seventy patients with brain metastases treated with SRT from 2006-2012 were analyzed. The rates of local and distant intracranial progression, overall survival, acute toxicity, and radionecrosis were determined. The SRT regimen was 25 Gy in 5 fractions among 87 % of patients. The most common tumor histologies were non-small cell lung cancer (37 %), breast cancer (20 %) and melanoma (20 %), and the median tumor diameter was 1.7 cm (range 0.4-6.4 cm). Median survival after SRT was 10.7 months. Median time to local progression was 17 months, with a local control rate of 68 % at 6 months and 56 % at 1 year. Acute toxicity was seen in 11 patients (16 %), mostly grade 1 or 2 with the most common symptom being mild headache. Symptomatic radiation-induced treatment change was seen on follow-up MRIs in three patients (4.3 %). SRT appears to be a safe and reasonably effective technique to treat brain metastases deemed less suitable for SRS, though dose intensification strategies may further improve local control.

Acute gastrointestinal toxicity and bowel bag dose-volume parameters for preoperative radiation therapy for retroperitoneal sarcoma.

PURPOSE: Acute gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity has been studied in GI and gynecological (GYN) cancers, with volume receiving 15 Gy (V15) <830 mL, V25 <650 mL, and V45 <195 mL identified as dose constraints for the peritoneal space (bowel bag [BB]). There are no reported constraints derived from retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS), and prospective trials for RPS have adopted some of the GI and GYN constraints. This study quantified GI toxicity during preoperative radiation therapy (RT) for RPS, assessed toxicity using published constraints, and evaluated predictors for toxicity. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From 2003 to 2013, 56 patients with RPS underwent preoperative RT at 2 institutions. Toxicity was scored using Radiation Therapy Oncology Group criteria for upper and lower acute GI toxicity. BB was contoured on planning computed tomography scans per Radiation Therapy Oncology Group atlas guidelines with review by a radiologist. Relationships among toxicity, clinical factors, and BB dose were analyzed. RESULTS: Three patients (5%) developed grade ≥3 acute GI toxicity: 2 grade 3 toxicities (anorexia and nausea) and 1 grade 5 toxicity (tumor-bowel fistula). Thirty-six patients (64%) had grade 2 toxicity (nausea, 55%; diarrhea, 23%; pain, 20%). Tumor size was the only significant clinical predictor of grade ≥2 acute GI toxicity. Larger mean BB volumes predicted for grade ≥2 toxicity (P = .001). On receiver operating characteristics analysis, V30 was the best discriminator for toxicity (P = .0001). Median BB V15 was 1375 mL; 75% of patients had V15 ≥830 mL. Median V25 was 1083 mL; 68% had V25 ≥650 mL. Median V45 was 575 mL; 82% had V45 ≥195 mL. V25 ≥650 mL was significantly associated with grade ≥2 toxicity (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients treated with preoperative RT for RPS, significant acute GI toxicity was very low despite BB dose exceeding established constraints for most cases. Acceptable dose constraints for RPS may be higher than those for GI or GYN cancers. Further assessment of dose-volume constraints for RPS is needed.

Evaluation of initial setup accuracy and intrafraction motion for spine stereotactic body radiation therapy using stereotactic body frames.

PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were (1) to evaluate the initial setup accuracy and intrafraction motion for spine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) using stereotactic body frames (SBFs) and (2) to validate an in-house-developed SBF using a commercial SBF as a benchmark. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty-two spine SBRT patients (34 sites, 118 fractions) were immobilized with the Elekta and in-house (BHS) SBFs. All patients were set up with the Brainlab ExacTrac system, which includes infrared and stereoscopic kilovoltage x-ray-based positioning. Patients were initially positioned in the frame with the use of skin tattoos and then shifted to the treatment isocenter based on infrared markers affixed to the frame with known geometry relative to the isocenter. ExacTrac kV imaging was acquired, and automatic 6D (6 degrees of freedom) bony fusion was performed. The resulting translations and rotations gave the initial setup accuracy. These translations and rotations were corrected for by use of a robotic couch, and verification imaging was acquired that yielded residual setup error. The imaging/fusion process was repeated multiple times during treatment to provide intrafraction motion data. RESULTS: The BHS SBF had greater initial setup errors (mean±SD): -3.9±5.5mm (0.2±0.9°), -1.6±6.0mm (0.5±1.4°), and 0.0±5.3mm (0.8±1.0°), respectively, in the vertical (VRT), longitudinal (LNG), and lateral (LAT) directions. The corresponding values were 0.6±2.7mm (0.2±0.6°), 0.9±5.3mm (-0.2±0.9°), and -0.9±3.0mm (0.3±0.9°) for the Elekta SBF. The residual setup errors were essentially the same for both frames and were -0.1±0.4mm (0.1±0.5°), -0.2±0.4mm (0.0±0.4°), and 0.0±0.4mm (0.0±0.4°), respectively, in VRT, LNG, and LAT. The intrafraction shifts in VRT, LNG, and LAT were 0.0±0.4mm (0.0±0.3°), 0.0±0.5mm (0.0±0.4°), and 0.0±0.4mm (0.0±0.3°), with no significant difference observed between the 2 frames. CONCLUSIONS: These results showed that the combination of the ExacTrac system with either SBF was highly effective in achieving both setup accuracy and intrafraction stability, which were on par with that of mask-based cranial radiosurgery.

Generation of fluoroscopic 3D images with a respiratory motion model based on an external surrogate signal.

Respiratory motion during radiotherapy can cause uncertainties in definition of the target volume and in estimation of the dose delivered to the target and healthy tissue. In this paper, we generate volumetric images of the internal patient anatomy during treatment using only the motion of a surrogate signal. Pre-treatment four-dimensional CT imaging is used to create a patient-specific model correlating internal respiratory motion with the trajectory of an external surrogate placed on the chest. The performance of this model is assessed with digital and physical phantoms reproducing measured irregular patient breathing patterns. Ten patient breathing patterns are incorporated in a digital phantom. For each patient breathing pattern, the model is used to generate images over the course of thirty seconds. The tumor position predicted by the model is compared to ground truth information from the digital phantom. Over the ten patient breathing patterns, the average absolute error in the tumor centroid position predicted by the motion model is 1.4 mm. The corresponding error for one patient breathing pattern implemented in an anthropomorphic physical phantom was 0.6 mm. The global voxel intensity error was used to compare the full image to the ground truth and demonstrates good agreement between predicted and true images. The model also generates accurate predictions for breathing patterns with irregular phases or amplitudes.

Low incidence of chest wall pain with a risk-adapted lung stereotactic body radiation therapy approach using three or five fractions based on chest wall dosimetry.

PURPOSE: To examine the frequency and potential of dose-volume predictors for chest wall (CW) toxicity (pain and/or rib fracture) for patients receiving lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) using treatment planning methods to minimize CW dose and a risk-adapted fractionation scheme. METHODS: We reviewed data from 72 treatment plans, from 69 lung SBRT patients with at least one year of follow-up or CW toxicity, who were treated at our center between 2010 and 2013. Treatment plans were optimized to reduce CW dose and patients received a risk-adapted fractionation of 18 Gy×3 fractions (54 Gy total) if the CW V30 was less than 30 mL or 10-12 Gy×5 fractions (50-60 Gy total) otherwise. The association between CW toxicity and patient characteristics, treatment parameters and dose metrics, including biologically equivalent dose, were analyzed using logistic regression. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 20 months, 6 (8.3%) patients developed CW pain including three (4.2%) grade 1, two (2.8%) grade 2 and one (1.4%) grade 3. Five (6.9%) patients developed rib fractures, one of which was symptomatic. No significant associations between CW toxicity and patient and dosimetric variables were identified on univariate nor multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Optimization of treatment plans to reduce CW dose and a risk-adapted fractionation strategy of three or five fractions based on the CW V30 resulted in a low incidence of CW toxicity. Under these conditions, none of the patient characteristics or dose metrics we examined appeared to be predictive of CW pain.

Total dural irradiation: RapidArc versus static-field IMRT: a case study.

The purpose of this study was to compare conventional fixed-gantry angle intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with RapidArc for total dural irradiation. We also hypothesize that target volume-individualized collimator angles may produce substantial normal tissue sparing when planning with RapidArc. Five-, 7-, and 9-field fixed-gantry angle sliding-window IMRT plans were generated for comparison with RapidArc plans. Optimization and normal tissue constraints were constant for all plans. All plans were normalized so that 95% of the planning target volume (PTV) received at least 100% of the dose. RapidArc was delivered using 350° clockwise and counterclockwise arcs. Conventional collimator angles of 45° and 315° were compared with 90° on both arcs. Dose prescription was 59.4 Gy in 33 fractions. PTV metrics used for comparison were coverage, V(107)%, D1%, conformality index (CI(95)%), and heterogeneity index (D(5)%-D(95)%). Brain dose, the main challenge of this case, was compared using D(1)%, Dmean, and V(5) Gy. Dose to optic chiasm, optic nerves, globes, and lenses was also compared. The use of unconventional collimator angles (90° on both arcs) substantially reduced dose to normal brain. All plans achieved acceptable target coverage. Homogeneity was similar for RapidArc and 9-field IMRT plans. However, heterogeneity increased with decreasing number of IMRT fields, resulting in unacceptable hotspots within the brain. Conformality was marginally better with RapidArc relative to IMRT. Low dose to brain, as indicated by V5Gy, was comparable in all plans. Doses to organs at risk (OARs) showed no clinically meaningful differences. The number of monitor units was lower and delivery time was reduced with RapidArc. The case-individualized RapidArc plan compared favorably with the 9-field conventional IMRT plan. In view of lower monitor unit requirements and shorter delivery time, RapidArc was selected as the optimal solution. Individualized collimator angle solutions should be considered by RapidArc dosimetrists for OARs dose reduction. RapidArc should be considered as a treatment modality for tumors that extensively involve in the skull, dura, or scalp.