Clinical assessment of geometric distortion for a 0.35T MR-guided radiotherapy system.

PURPOSE: To estimate the overall spatial distortion on clinical patient images for a 0.35 T MR-guided radiotherapy system. METHODS: Ten patients with head-and-neck cancer underwent CT and MR simulations with identical immobilization. The MR images underwent the standard systematic distortion correction post-processing. The images were rigidly registered and landmark-based analysis was performed by an anatomical expert. Distortion was quantified using Euclidean distance between each landmark pair and tagged by tissue interface: bone-tissue, soft tissue, or air-tissue. For baseline comparisons, an anthropomorphic phantom was imaged and analyzed. RESULTS: The average spatial discrepancy between CT and MR landmarks was 1.15 ± 1.14 mm for the phantom and 1.46 ± 1.78 mm for patients. The error histogram peaked at 0-1 mm. 66% of the discrepancies were <2 mm and 51% <1 mm. In the patient data, statistically significant differences (p-values < 0.0001) were found between the different tissue interfaces with averages of 0.88 ± 1.24 mm, 2.01 ± 2.20 mm, and 1.41 ± 1.56 mm for the air/tissue, bone/tissue, and soft tissue, respectively. The distortion generally correlated with the in-plane radial distance from the image center along the longitudinal axis of the MR. CONCLUSION: Spatial distortion remains in the MR images after systematic distortion corrections. Although the average errors were relatively small, large distortions observed at bone/tissue interfaces emphasize the need for quantitative methods for assessing and correcting patient-specific spatial distortions.

A Comparison of Patient- and Clinician-Reported Acute Toxic Effects During Radiation Therapy for Primary Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Evidence suggests that cancer treatment-related toxic effects are underreported by clinicians. We sought to compare patient- and clinician-reported acute toxic effects among patients undergoing radiation therapy for primary breast cancer and to determine factors associated with patient-clinician discordance. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patient responses from a weekly Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events based assessment were matched to clinician assessments of acute toxic effects during treatment. Weighted κ statistics were used to evaluate agreement between patient and clinician assessments. Linear regression, logistic regression, and generalized estimating equation models were used to identify covariates associated with discordance. RESULTS: Overall, 842 patient-clinician assessment pairs from 376 unique patients were analyzed. Total symptom burden score was higher for patients than clinicians (4.7 vs 2.3, P < .01). Dermatitis, pruritis, pain, and edema items were classified as having minimal agreement (κ of 0.25, 0.23, 0.20, and 0.25, respectively). Fatigue (κ 0.17) and psychosocial (0.03) patient-clinician pairs were found to have no agreement. The linear regression demonstrated that assessments by patients who identified as Black or African American were associated with a 0.13-point decrease in discordance (95% confidence interval, -0.25 to -0.01), while time from the start of treatment was associated with increased discordance (95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.12). CONCLUSIONS: For patients undergoing breast radiation therapy, discordance in patient and clinician symptom reporting is high and increases as treatment progresses. The mechanism of reduced discordance among Black or African American patients warrants further investigation. Prospective studies are needed to determine whether interventions for lower severity symptoms, which are commonly overlooked by clinicians, can reduce symptom burden and improve patient quality of life during radiation therapy.

A Prospective Phase II Study of Automated Non-Coplanar VMAT for Recurrent Head and Neck Cancer: Initial Report of Feasibility, Safety, and Patient-Reported Outcomes.

This study reports the initial results for the first 15 patients on a prospective phase II clinical trial exploring the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of the HyperArc technique for recurrent head and neck cancer treatment. Eligible patients were simulated and planned with both conventional VMAT and HyperArc techniques and the plan with superior dosimetry was selected for treatment. Dosimetry, delivery feasibility and safety, treatment-related toxicity, and patient-reported quality of life (QOL) were all evaluated. HyperArc was chosen over conventional VMAT for all 15 patients and enabled statistically significant increases in dose conformity (R50% reduced by 1.2 ± 2.1, p < 0.05) and mean PTV and GTV doses (by 15.7 ± 4.9 Gy, p < 0.01 and 17.1 ± 6.0 Gy, p < 0.01, respectively). The average HyperArc delivery was 2.8 min longer than conventional VMAT (p < 0.01), and the mean intrafraction motion was ≤ 0.5 ± 0.4 mm and ≤0.3 ± 0.1°. With a median follow-up of 12 months, treatment-related toxicity was minimal (only one grade 3 acute toxicity above baseline) and patient-reported QOL metrics were favorable. HyperArc enabled superior dosimetry and significant target dose escalation compared to conventional VMAT planning, and treatment delivery was feasible, safe, and well-tolerated by patients.

Automated Non-Coplanar VMAT for Dose Escalation in Recurrent Head and Neck Cancer Patients.

This study evaluates the potential for tumor dose escalation in recurrent head and neck cancer (rHNC) patients with automated non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) planning (HyperArc). Twenty rHNC patients are planned with conventional VMAT SBRT to 40 Gy while minimizing organ-at-risk (OAR) doses. They are then re-planned with the HyperArc technique to match these minimal OAR doses while escalating the target dose as high as possible. Then, we compare the dosimetry, tumor control probability (TCP), and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for the two plan types. Our results show that the HyperArc technique significantly increases the mean planning target volume (PTV) and gross tumor volume (GTV) doses by 10.8 ± 4.4 Gy (25%) and 11.5 ± 5.1 Gy (26%) on average, respectively. There are no clinically significant differences in OAR doses, with maximum dose differences of <2 Gy on average. The average TCP is 23% (± 21%) higher for HyperArc than conventional plans, with no significant differences in NTCP for the brainstem, cord, mandible, or larynx. HyperArc can achieve significant tumor dose escalation while maintaining minimal OAR doses in the head and neck-potentially enabling improved local control for rHNC SBRT patients without increased risk of treatment-related toxicities.