Use of a healthy volunteer imaging program to optimize clinical implementation of stereotactic MR-guided adaptive radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: MR-linacs (MRLs) have enabled the use of stereotactic magnetic resonance (MR) guided online adaptive radiotherapy (SMART) across many cancers. As data emerges to support SMART, uncertainty remains regarding optimal technical parameters, such as optimal patient positioning, immobilization, image quality, and contouring protocols. Prior to clinical implementation of SMART, we conducted a prospective study in healthy volunteers (HVs) to determine optimal technical parameters and to develop and practice a multidisciplinary SMART workflow. METHODS: HVs 18 years or older were eligible to participate in this IRB-approved study. Using a 0.35 T MRL, simulated adaptive treatments were performed by a multi-disciplinary treatment team in HVs. For each scan, image quality parameters were assessed on a 5-point scale (5 = extremely high, 1 = extremely poor). Adaptive recontouring times were compared between HVs and subsequent clinical cases with a t-test. RESULTS: 18 simulated treatments were performed in HVs on MRL. Mean parameters for visibility of target, visibility of nearby organs, and overall image quality were 4.58, 4.62, and 4.62, respectively (range of 4-5 for all measures). In HVs, mean ART was 15.7 min (range 4-35), comparable to mean of 16.1 (range 7-33) in the clinical cases (p = 0.8963). Using HV cases, optimal simulation and contouring guidelines were developed across a range of disease sites and have since been implemented clinically. CONCLUSIONS: Prior to clinical implementation of SMART, scans of HVs on an MRL resulted in acceptable image quality and target visibility across a range of organs with similar ARTs to clinical SMART. We continue to utilize HV scans prior to clinical implementation of SMART in new disease sites and to further optimize target tracking and immobilization. Further study is needed to determine the optimal duration of HV scanning prior to clinical implementation.

Placement of empty catheters for an HDR-emulating LDR prostate brachytherapy technique: comparison to standard intraoperative planning.

PURPOSE: We sought to determine whether placing empty catheters within the prostate and then inverse planning iodine-125 seed locations within those catheters (High Dose Rate-Emulating Low Dose Rate Prostate Brachytherapy [HELP] technique) would improve concordance between planned and achieved dosimetry compared with a standard intraoperative technique. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We examined 30 consecutive low dose rate prostate cases performed by standard intraoperative technique of planning followed by needle placement/seed deposition and compared them to 30 consecutive low dose rate prostate cases performed by the HELP technique. The primary endpoint was concordance between planned percentage of the clinical target volume that receives at least 100% of the prescribed dose/dose that covers 90% of the volume of the clinical target volume (V100/D90) and the actual V100/D90 achieved at Postoperative Day 1. RESULTS: The HELP technique had superior concordance between the planned target dosimetry and what was actually achieved at Day 1 and Day 30. Specifically, target D90 at Day 1 was on average 33.7 Gy less than planned for the standard intraoperative technique but was only 10.5 Gy less than planned for the HELP technique (p < 0.001). Day 30 values were 16.6 Gy less vs. 2.2 Gy more than planned, respectively (p = 0.028). Day 1 target V100 was 6.3% less than planned with standard vs. 2.8% less for HELP (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the urethral and rectal concordance (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Placing empty needles first and optimizing the plan to the known positions of the needles resulted in improved concordance between the planned and the achieved dosimetry to the target, possibly because of elimination of errors in needle placement.

Use of a rectal spacer with low-dose-rate brachytherapy for treatment of prostate cancer in previously irradiated patients: Initial experience and short-term results.

BACKGROUND: Salvage brachytherapy in patients with prior pelvic radiation carries a risk of rectal injury. Herein, we report our initial experience using a hydrogel spacer between the prostate and the rectum during salvage brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 11 patients with prostate cancer and prior radiotherapy (5 prostate brachytherapy, 2 prostate external beam radiation therapy [EBRT], and 4 rectal cancer EBRT) received (125)I brachytherapy after attempted placement of 10cc of a diluted hydrogel spacer between the prostate and rectum. RESULTS: Spacing was achieved in 8 of the 11 (73%) patients but was not possible in 3 (1 prior brachytherapy and 2 prior EBRT) owing to fibrosis and adhesions. For the 8 patients in whom spacing was accomplished, the median space between the prostate and rectum was 10.9mm (prior EBRT) vs. 7.7mm (prior brachytherapy), p=0.048. Median followup was 15.7 months. One patient developed a prostato-rectal fistula requiring a diverting colostomy. The 16-month estimate of late Grade 3 or 4 gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicity was 26%. One patient developed lymph node-positive recurrence. The 16-month prostate-specific antigen failure-free survival rate was 89%. Compared with baseline, Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite for Clinical Practice urinary quality of life (QoL) was significantly worse at 3 and 6 months but not significantly worse by 1 year. There were no significant changes throughout the study period in bowel or sexual QoL. CONCLUSION: Hydrogel spacer placements may be feasible in most patients with prior pelvic radiation. Further followup is needed to determine whether spacer placement will produce long-term improvements in toxicity or QoL.