A pair of deep learning auto-contouring models for prostate cancer patients injected with a radio-transparent versus radiopaque hydrogel spacer.

BACKGROUND: Absorbable hydrogel spacer injected between prostate and rectum is gaining popularity for rectal sparing. The spacer alters patient anatomy and thus requires new auto-contouring models. PURPOSE: To report the development and comprehensive evaluation of two deep-learning models for patients injected with a radio-transparent (model I) versus radiopaque (model II) spacer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Model I was trained and cross-validated by 135 cases with transparent spacer and tested on 24 cases. Using refined training methods, model II was trained and cross-validated by the same dataset, but with the Hounsfield Unit distribution in the spacer overridden by that obtained from ten cases with opaque spacer. Model II was tested on 64 cases. The models auto-contour eight regions of interest (ROIs): spacer, prostate, proximal seminal vesicles (SVs), left and right femurs, bladder, rectum, and penile bulb. Qualitatively, each auto contour (AC), as well as the composite set, was assessed against manual contour (MC), by a radiation oncologist using a 1 (accepted directly or after minor editing), 2 (accepted after moderate editing), 3 (accepted after major editing), and 4 (rejected) scoring scale. The efficiency gain was characterized by the mean score as nearly complete [1-1.75], substantial (1.75-2.5], meaningful (2.5-3.25], and no (3.25-4.00]. Quantitatively, the geometric similarity between AC and MC was evaluated by dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and mean distance to agreement (MDA), using tolerance recommended by AAPM TG-132 Report. The results by the two models were compared to examine the outcome of the refined training methods. The large number of testing cases for model II allowed further investigation of inter-observer variability in clinical dataset. The correlation between score and DSC/MDA was studied on the ROIs with 10 or more counts of each acceptable score (1, 2, 3). RESULTS: For model I/model II: the mean score was 3.63/1.30 for transparent/opaque spacer, 2.71/2.16 for prostate, 3.25/2.44 for proximal SVs, 1.13/1.02 for both femurs, 2.25/1.25 for bladder, 3.00/2.06 for rectum, 3.38/2.42 for penile bulb, and 2.79/2.20 for the composite set; the mean DSC was 0.52/0.84 for spacer, 0.84/0.85 for prostate, 0.60/0.62 for proximal SVs, 0.94/0.96 for left femur, 0.95/0.96 for right femur, 0.91/0.95 for bladder, 0.81/0.84 for rectum, and 0.65/0.65 for penile bulb; and the mean MDA was 2.9/0.9 mm for spacer, 1.9/1.7 mm for prostate, 2.4/2.3 mm for proximal SVs, 0.8/0.5 mm for left femur, 0.7/0.5 mm for right femur, 1.5/0.9 mm for bladder, 2.3/1.9 mm for rectum, and 2.2/2.2 mm for penile bulb. Model II showed significantly improved scores for all ROIs, and metrics for spacer, femurs, bladder, and rectum. Significant inter-observer variability was only found for prostate. Highly linear correlation between the score and DSC was found for the two qualified ROIs (prostate and rectum). CONCLUSIONS: The overall efficiency gain was meaningful for model I and substantial for model II. The ROIs meeting the clinical deployment criteria (mean score below 3.25, DSC above 0.8, and MDA below 2.5 mm) included prostate, both femurs, bladder and rectum for both models, and spacer for model II.

Proton Radiotherapy for Patients With Oligometastatic Breast Cancer Involving the Sternum.

INTRODUCTION: A subset of metastatic breast cancer patients present with oligometastatic disease involving the sternum. Given the proximity to traditional target structures, a proton radiation field can be expanded to include this region, providing definitive therapy for patients who are otherwise metastatic. We evaluated the feasibility and outcomes of a small series of patients who received comprehensive nodal irradiation inclusive of an isolated sternal metastasis using proton pencil beam scanning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four patients with a diagnosis of metastatic breast cancer with an isolated metastasis to the sternum received multimodality therapy with curative intent and then underwent adjuvant pencil beam scanning with definitive treatment to the sternum. Dosimetric parameters and treatment outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: With respect to treatment coverage, proton therapy was able to deliver comprehensive target structure coverage while maintaining modest doses to the organs at risk compared with photon techniques. At a median follow-up of 28 months from diagnosis, none of the patients have experienced relapse within the radiation portal or developed additional sites of metastatic disease. CONCLUSION: Pencil beam scanning for oligometastatic breast cancer with isolated sternal lesions appears feasible without undue normal tissue exposure. Current treatment outcomes appear promising.

Target coverage and cardiopulmonary sparing with the updated ESTRO-ACROP contouring guidelines for postmastectomy radiation therapy after breast reconstruction: a treatment planning study using VMAT and proton PBS techniques.

BACKGROUND: The European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology Advisory Committee in Radiation Oncology Practice (ESTRO-ACROP) recently released new contouring guidelines for postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) after implant-based reconstruction (IBR). As compared to prior ESTRO guidelines, the new guidelines primarily redefined the chest wall (CW) target to exclude the breast prosthesis. In this study, we assessed the impact of these changes on treatment planning and dosimetric outcomes using volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and proton pencil-beam scanning (PBS) therapy. METHODS: We performed a treatment planning study of 10 women with left-sided breast cancer who underwent PMRT after IBR. All target structures were delineated first using standard (ESTRO) breast contouring guidelines and then separately using the new (ESTRO-ACROP) guidelines. Standard organs-at-risk (OARs) and cardiac substructures were contoured. Four sets of plans were generated: (1) VMAT using standard ESTRO contours, (2) VMAT using new ESTRO-ACROP contours, (3) PBS using standard contours, and (4) PBS using new contours. RESULTS: VMAT plans using the new ESTRO-ACROP guidelines resulted in modest sparing of the left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) (mean dose: 6.99 Gy standard ESTRO vs. 6.08 Gy new ESTRO-ACROP, p = 0.010) and ipsilateral lung (V20: 21.66% vs 19.45%, p = 0.017), but similar exposure to the heart (mean dose: 4.6 Gy vs. 4.3 Gy, p = 0.513), with a trend toward higher contralateral lung (V5: 31.0% vs 35.3%, p = 0.331) and CW doses (V5: 31.9% vs 35.4%, p = 0.599). PBS plans using the new guidelines resulted in further sparing of the heart (mean dose: 1.05 Gy(RBE) vs. 0.54 Gy(RBE), p < 0.001), nearly all cardiac substructures (LAD mean dose: 2.01 Gy(RBE) vs. 0.66 Gy(RBE), p < 0.001), and ipsilateral lung (V20: 16.22% vs 6.02%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: PMRT after IBR using the new ESTRO-ACROP contouring guidelines with both VMAT and PBS therapy is associated with significant changes in exposure to several cardiopulmonary structures.

Early experience with hippocampal avoidance whole brain radiation therapy and simultaneous integrated boost for brain metastases.

PURPOSE: Cranial irradiation results in cognitive decline, which is hypothesized to be partially attributable to hippocampal injury and stem cell loss. Recent advances allow for targeted reduction of radiation dose to the hippocampi while maintaining adequate dose coverage to the brain parenchyma and additional increasing dose to brain metastases, a approach called hippocampal avoidance whole brain radiation therapy with a simultaneous integrated boost (HA-WBRT + SIB.) We review our early clinical experience with HA-WBRT + SIB. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated treatments and clinical outcomes for patients treated with HA-WBRT + SIB between 2014 and 2018. RESULTS: A total of 32 patients (median age, 63.5 years, range 45.3-78.8 years) completed HA-WBRT + SIB. Median follow-up for patients alive at the time of analysis was 11.3 months. The most common histology was non-small cell lung cancer (n = 22). Most patients (n = 25) were prescribed with WBRT dose of 30 Gy with SIB to 37.5 Gy in 15 fractions. Volumetric modulated arc therapy reduced treatment time (p < 0.0001). Median freedom from intracranial progression and overall survival from completion of treatment were 11.4 months and 19.6 months, respectively. Karnofsky Performance Status was associated with improved survival (p = 0.008). The most common toxicities were alopecia, fatigue, and nausea. Five patients developed cognitive impairment, including grade 1 (n = 3), grade 2 (n = 1), and grade 3 (n = 1). CONCLUSION: HA-WBRT + SIB demonstrated durable intracranial disease control with modest side effects and merits further investigation as a means of WBRT toxicity reduction while improving long-term locoregional control in the brain.

Assessment of multi-criteria optimization (MCO) for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in hippocampal avoidance whole brain radiation therapy (HA-WBRT).

This study compared the dosimetric performance of (a) volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with standard optimization (STD) and (b) multi-criteria optimization (MCO) to (c) intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with MCO for hippocampal avoidance whole brain radiation therapy (HA-WBRT) in RayStation treatment planning system (TPS). Ten HA-WBRT patients previously treated with MCO-IMRT or MCO-VMAT on an Elekta Infinity accelerator with Agility multileaf collimators (5-mm leaves) were re-planned for the other two modalities. All patients received 30 Gy in 15 fractions to the planning target volume (PTV), namely, PTV30 expanded with a 2-mm margin from the whole brain excluding hippocampus with margin. The patients all had metastatic lesions (up to 12) of variable sizes and proximity to the hippocampus, treated with an additional 7.5 Gy from a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) to PTV37.5. The IMRT plans used eight to eleven non-coplanar fields, whereas the VMAT plans used two coplanar full arcs and a vertex half arc. The averaged target coverage, dose to organs-at-risk (OARs) and monitor unit provided by the three modalities were compared, and a Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed. MCO-VMAT provided statistically significant reduction of D100 of hippocampus compared to STD-VMAT, and Dmax of cochleas compared to MCO-IMRT. With statistical significance, MCO-VMAT improved V30 of PTV30 by 14.2% and 4.8%, respectively, compared to MCO-IMRT and STD-VMAT. It also raised D95 of PTV37.5 by 0.4 Gy compared to both MCO-IMRT and STD-VMAT. Improved plan quality parameters such as a decrease in overall plan Dmax and total monitor units (MU) were also observed for MCO-VMAT. MCO-VMAT is found to be the optimal modality for HA-WBRT in terms of PTV coverage, OAR sparing and delivery efficiency, compared to MCO-IMRT or STD-VMAT.