Efficacy and safety of SBRT for spine metastases: A systematic review and meta-analysis for preparation of an ESTRO practice guideline.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Advances in characterizing cancer biology and the growing availability of novel targeted agents and immune therapeutics have significantly changed the prognosis of many patients with metastatic disease. Palliative radiotherapy needs to adapt to these developments. In this study, we summarize the available evidence for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in the treatment of spinal metastases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using PRISMA methodology, including publications from January 2005 to September 2021, with the exception of the randomized phase III trial RTOG-0631 which was added in April 2023. Re-irradiation was excluded. For meta-analysis, a random-effects model was used to pool the data. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I2-test, assuming substantial and considerable as I2 > 50 % and I2 > 75 %, respectively. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 69 studies assessing the outcomes of 7236 metastases in 5736 patients were analyzed. SBRT for spine metastases showed high efficacy, with a pooled overall pain response rate of 83 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 68 %-94 %), pooled complete pain response of 36 % (95 % CI: 20 %-53 %), and 1-year local control rate of 94 % (95 % CI: 86 %-99 %), although with high levels of heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 93 %, I2 = 86 %, and 86 %, respectively). Furthermore, SBRT was safe, with a pooled vertebral fracture rate of 9 % (95 % CI: 4 %-16 %), pooled radiation induced myelopathy rate of 0 % (95 % CI 0-2 %), and pooled pain flare rate of 6 % (95 % CI: 3 %-17 %), although with mixed levels of heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 92 %, I2 = 0 %, and 95 %, respectively). Only 1.7 % of vertebral fractures required surgical stabilization. CONCLUSION: Spine SBRT is characterized by a favorable efficacy and safety profile, providing durable results for pain control and disease control, which is particularly relevant for oligometastatic patients.

Correction to: Planning comparison of five automated treatment planning solutions for locally advanced head and neck cancer.

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors reported that one of the authors' names was processed incorrectly.

Planning comparison of five automated treatment planning solutions for locally advanced head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: Automated treatment planning and/or optimization systems (ATPS) are in the process of broad clinical implementation aiming at reducing inter-planner variability, reducing the planning time allocated for the optimization process and improving plan quality. Five different ATPS used clinically were evaluated for advanced head and neck cancer (HNC). METHODS: Three radiation oncology departments compared 5 different ATPS: 1) Automatic Interactive Optimizer (AIO) in combination with RapidArc (in-house developed and Varian Medical Systems); 2) Auto-Planning (AP) (Philips Radiation Oncology Systems); 3) RapidPlan version 13.6 (RP1) with HNC model from University Hospital A (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, USA); 4) RapidPlan version 13.7 (RP2) combined with scripting for automated setup of fields with HNC model from University Hospital B; 5) Raystation multicriteria optimization algorithm version 5 (RS) (Laboratories AB, Stockholm, Sweden). Eight randomly selected HNC cases from institution A and 8 from institution B were used. PTV coverage, mean and maximum dose to the organs at risk and effective planning time were compared. Ranking was done based on 3 Gy increments for the parallel organs. RESULTS: All planning systems achieved the hard dose constraints for the PTVs and serial organs for all patients. Overall, AP achieved the best ranking for the parallel organs followed by RS, AIO, RP2 and RP1. The oral cavity mean dose was the lowest for RS (31.3 ± 17.6 Gy), followed by AP (33.8 ± 17.8 Gy), RP1 (34.1 ± 16.7 Gy), AIO (36.1 ± 16.8 Gy) and RP2 (36.3 ± 16.2 Gy). The submandibular glands mean dose was 33.6 ± 10.8 Gy (AP), 35.2 ± 8.4 Gy (AIO), 35.5 ± 9.3 Gy (RP2), 36.9 ± 7.6 Gy (RS) and 38.2 ± 7.0 Gy (RP1). The average effective planning working time was substantially different between the five ATPS (in minutes): < 2 ± 1 for AIO and RP2, 5 ± 1 for AP, 15 ± 2 for RP1 and 340 ± 48 for RS, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: All ATPS were able to achieve all planning DVH constraints and the effective working time was kept bellow 20 min for each ATPS except for RS. For the parallel organs, AP performed the best, although the differences were small.

A modified McKinnon-Bates (MKB) algorithm for improved 4D cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) of the lung.

PURPOSE: Four-dimensional (4D) cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) of the lung is an effective tool for motion management in radiotherapy but presents a challenge because of slow gantry rotation times. Sorting the individual projections by breathing phase and using an established technique such as Feldkamp-Davis-Kress (FDK) to generate corresponding phase-correlated (PC) three-dimensional (3D) images results in reconstructions (FDK-PC) that often contain severe streaking artifacts due to the sparse angular sampling distributions. These can be reduced by further slowing down the gantry at the expense of incurring unwanted increases in scan times and dose. A computationally efficient alternative is the McKinnon-Bates (MKB) reconstruction algorithm that has shown promise in reducing view aliasing-induced streaking but can produce ghosting artifacts that reduce contrast and impede the determination of motion trajectories. The purpose of this work was to identify and correct shortcomings in the MKB algorithm. METHODS: In the general MKB approach, a time-averaged 3D prior image is first reconstructed. The prior is then forward-projected at the same angles as the original projection data creating time-averaged reprojections. These reprojections are subsequently subtracted from the original (unblurred) projections to create motion-encoded difference projections. The difference projections are reconstructed into PC difference images that are added to the well-sampled 3D prior to create the higher quality 4D image. The cause of the ghosting in the traditional 4D MKB images was studied and traced to motion-induced streaking in the prior that, when reprojected, has the undesirable effect of re-encoding for motion in what should be a purely time-averaged reprojection. A new method, designated as the modified McKinnon-Bates (mMKB) algorithm, was developed based on destreaking the prior. This was coupled with a postprocessing 4D bilateral filter for noise suppression and edge preservation (mMKBbf ). The algorithms were tested with the 4D XCAT phantom using four simulated scan times (57, 60, 120, 180 s) and with two in vivo thorax studies (acquisition time of 60 and 90 s). Contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) of the target lesions and overall visual quality of the images were assessed. RESULTS: Prior destreaking (mMKB algorithm) reduced ghosting artifacts and increased CNRs for all cases, with the biggest impacts seen in the end inhale (EI) and end exhale (EE) phases of the respiratory cycle. For the XCAT phantom, mMKB lesion CNR was 44% higher than the MKB lesion CNR and was 81% higher than the FDK-PC lesion CNR (EI and EE phases). The bilateral filter provided a further average CNR improvement of 87% with the highest increases associated with longer scan times. Across all phases and scan times, the maximum mMKBbf -to-FDK-PC CNR improvement was over 300%. In vivo results agreed with XCAT results. Significantly less ghosting was observed throughout the mMKB images including near the lesions-of-interest and the diaphragm allowing for, in one case, visualization of a small tumor with nearly 30 mm of motion. The maximum FDK-PC-to-MKBbf CNR improvement for Patient 1's lesion was 261% and for Patient 2's lesion was 318%. CONCLUSIONS: The 4D mMKB algorithm yields good quality coronal and sagittal images in the thorax that may provide sufficient information for patient verification.

Outcomes of concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer and significant comorbidity.

BACKGROUND: published trials of concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) generally excluded patients with significant comorbidity. We evaluated outcomes in patients who were selected by using radiation planning parameters and were considered, despite comorbidity, fit enough to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: from 2003 to 2008, 89 patients with stage III NSCLC fit to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy and a V(20) <42% underwent CCRT at one center outside clinical trials. Most received one cycle of cisplatin-gemcitabine, followed by two to three cycles of cisplatin-etoposide concurrent with involved-field thoracic radiotherapy between 46 and 66 Gy. RESULTS: median age was 64 years; performance status (PS) of zero, one or two in 20/64/5 patients; one or more comorbidities in 41.6%; 14% were treated previously for NSCLC. Median V(20) was 26.6% (range 4%-39.4%). Grade III esophagitis and pneumonitis occurred in 28.1% and 7.9% of patients, respectively, while 4.5% died during treatment. Median overall survival was 18.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 13.1-23.3 months]. Independent prognostic factors for overall survival were PS (0 versus ≥ 1, P = 0.041) and planning target volume (P = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: patients with significant comorbidity who are fit to undergo cisplatin-based CCRT achieve median survivals similar to that reported in phase III trials and with relatively few late toxic effects.

Comments on 'Single-Arc IMRT?'.

We read with interest the article titled 'Single-Arc IMRT?' (Bortfeld and Webb 2009 Phys. Med. Biol. 54 N9-20) and feel it imperative to draw the attention of your readers to comments suggesting that the authors may not be fully aware of current developments in this field. As their paper was first submitted on 19th of August 2008, it could not have taken into account data presented at the AAPM, ESTRO and ASTRO meetings in 2008. In this letter, we would like to clarify some relevant aspects of RapidArc (Varian Medical Systems) as a modality for delivering single-arc treatment.

Towards in vivo monitoring of neutron distributions for quality control of BNCT.

Dose delivery in boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT) is complex because several components contribute to the dose absorbed in tissue. This dose is largely determined by local boron concentration, thermal neutron distribution and patient positioning. In vivo measurements of these factors would considerably improve quality control and safety. During therapy, a y-ray telescope measures the y-rays emitted following neutron capture by hydrogen and boron in a small volume of the head of a patient. Scans of hydrogen y-ray emissions could be used to verify the actual distribution of thermal neutrons during neutron irradiation. The method was first tested on different phantoms. These measurements showed good agreement with calculations based on thermal neutron distributions derived from a treatment planning program and from Monte Carlo N-particle (MCNP) simulations. Next, the feasibility of telescope scans during patient irradiation therapy was demonstrated. Measurements were reproducible between irradiation fractions. In theory, this method can be used to verify the positioning of the patient in vivo and the delivery of thermal neutrons in tissue. However, differences between measurements and calculations based on a routine treatment planning program were observed. These differences could be used to refine the treatment planning. Further developments will be necessary for this method to become a standard quality control system.