High-Dose Rate Interstitial Spine Brachytherapy Using an Intraoperative Mobile Computed Tomography-Guided Surgical Navigation System.

BACKGROUND: Up to 15% of previously irradiated metastatic spine tumors will progress. Re-irradiation of these tumors poses a significant risk of exceeding the radiation tolerance to the spinal cord. High-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy is a treatment alternative. OBJECTIVE: To develop a novel HDR spine brachytherapy technique using an intraoperative computed tomography-guided navigation (iCT navigation). METHODS: Patients with progressive metastatic spine tumors were included in the study. HDR brachytherapy catheters were placed under iCT navigation. CT-based planning with magnetic resonance imaging fusion was performed to ensure conformal dose delivery to the target while sparing normal tissue, including the spinal cord. Patients received single fraction radiation treatment. RESULTS: Five patients with thoracolumbar tumors were treated with HDR brachytherapy. Four patients previously received radiotherapy to the same spinal level. Preimplant plans demonstrated median clinical target volume (CTV) D90 of 116.5% (110.8%-147.7%), V100 of 95.7% (95.5%-99.6%), and Dmax of 8.08 Gy (7.65-9.8 Gy) to the spinal cord/cauda equina. Postimplant plans provided median CTV D90 of 113.8% (93.6%-120.1%), V100 of 95.9% (87%-99%), and Dmax of 9.48 Gy (6.5-10.3 Gy) to cord/cauda equina. Patients who presented with back pain (n = 3) noted symptomatic improvement at a median follow-up of 22 d after treatment. Four patients demonstrated local tumor control of spinal metastatic tumor at a median follow-up of 92 d after treatment. One patient demonstrated radiographic evidence of local tumor progression 2.7 mo after treatment. CONCLUSION: HDR spine brachytherapy with iCT navigation is a promising treatment alternative to induce local tumor control and reduce pain symptoms associated with metastatic spine disease.

Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing of CT-Guided vs MR-Guided Prostate SBRT.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has become a standard-of-care option for localized prostate cancer. While prostate SBRT has traditionally been delivered using computed-tomography-guided radiation therapy (CTgRT), MR-imaging-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) is now available. MRgRT offers real-time soft-tissue visualization and ease of adaptive planning, obviating the need for fiducial markers, and potentially allowing for smaller planning target volume (PTV) margins. Although prior studies have focused on evaluating the cost-effectiveness of MRgRT vs CTgRT from a payor perspective, the difference in provider costs to deliver such treatments remains unknown. This study thus used time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) to determine the difference in provider resources consumed by delivering prostate SBRT via MRgRT vs CTgRT. METHODS: Data was collected from a single academic institution where prostate SBRT is routinely performed using both CTgRT and MRgRT. Five-fraction SBRT (40 Gy total dose) was assumed to be delivered through volumetric-modulated arc therapy for CTgRT patients, and through step-and-shoot, fixed-gantry intensity-modulated radiation therapy for MRgRT patients. Process maps were constructed for each portion of the radiation delivery process via interviews/surveys with departmental personnel and by measuring CTgRT and MRgRT treatment times. Prior to simulation, only CTgRT patients underwent placement of three gold fiducial markers. Personnel capacity cost rates were calculated by dividing total personnel costs by the annual minutes worked by a given personnel. Equipment costs included both an annualized purchase price and annual maintenance costs. Ultimately, the total costs of care encompassing personnel, space/equipment, and materials were aggregated across the entire chain of care for both CTgRT and MRgRT patients in a base case. RESULTS: Direct costs associated with delivering a 5-fraction course of prostate SBRT were $1,497 higher with MRgRT than with CTgRT - comprised of personnel costs ($210 higher with MRgRT), space/equipment ($1,542 higher with MRgRT), and materials ($255 higher with CTgRT). Only CTgRT patients underwent fiducial placement, which accounted for $591. MRgRT patients were assumed to undergo both CT simulation (for electron density calculation) and MRI simulation, with the former accounting for $168. Mean time spent by patients in the treatment vault per fraction was 20 minutes (range 15-26 minutes) for CTgRT, and 31 minutes (range 30-34 minutes) for MRgRT. Patient time spent during fiducial placement (CTgRT only) was 60 minutes. Modifying the number of fractions treated would result in the cost difference of $1,497 (5 fractions) changing to $441 (1 fraction) or to $2,025 (7 fractions). CONCLUSION: This study provides an approximate comparison of the direct resources required for a radiation oncology provider to deliver prostate SBRT with CTgRT vs MRgRT. We await findings from the currently accruing phase III MIRAGE trial, which is comparing these modalities, and will subsequently measure acute and late genitourinary/gastrointestinal (GU/GI) toxicities, temporal change in quality-of-life outcomes, and 5-year biochemical, recurrence-free survival. Results from studies comparing the efficacy and safety of MRgRT vs CTgRT will ultimately allow us to put this cost difference into context.