Vocal-cord Only vs. Complete Laryngeal radiation (VOCAL): a randomized multicentric Bayesian phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy, along with laser surgery, is considered a standard treatment option for patients with early glottic squamous cell cancer (SCC). Historically, patients have received complete larynx radiotherapy (CL-RT) due to fear of swallowing and respiratory laryngeal motion and this remains the standard approach in many academic institutions. Local control (LC) rates with CL-RT have been excellent, however this treatment can carry significant toxicities include adverse voice and swallowing outcomes, along with increased long-term risk of cerebrovascular morbidity. A recent retrospective study reported improved voice quality and similar local control outcomes with focused vocal cord radiotherapy (VC-RT) compared to CL-RT. There is currently no prospective evidence on the safety of VC-RT. The primary objective of this Bayesian Phase II trial is to compare the LC of VC-RT to that of CL-RT in patients with T1N0 glottic SCC. METHODS: One hundred and fifty-five patients with T1a-b N0 SCC of the true vocal cords that are n ot candidate or declined laser surgery, will be randomized in a 1:3 ratio the control arm (CL-RT) and the experimental arm (VC-RT). Randomisation will be stratified by tumor stage (T1a/T1b) and by site (each site will be allowed to select one preferred radiation dose regimen, to be used in both arms). CL-RT volumes will correspond to the conventional RT volumes, with the planning target volume extending from the top of thyroid cartilage lamina superiorly to the bottom of the cricoid inferiorly. VC-RT volumes will include the involved vocal cord(s) and a margin accounting for respiration and set-up uncertainty. The primary endpoint will be LC at 2-years, while secondary endpoints will include patient-reported outcomes (voice impairment, dysphagia and symptom burden), acute and late toxicity radiation-induced toxicity, overall survival, progression free survival, as well as an optional component of acoustic and objective measures of voice analysis using the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice. DISCUSSION: This study would constitute the first prospective evidence on the efficacy and safety of VC-RT in early glottic cancer. If positive, this study would result in the adoption of VC-RT as standard approach in early glottic cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03759431 Registration date: November 30, 2018.

Evaluation of the accuracy of deformable image registration on MRI with a physical phantom.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has gained popularity in radiation therapy simulation because it provides superior soft tissue contrast, which facilitates more accurate target delineation compared with computed tomography (CT) and does not expose the patient to ionizing radiation. However, image registration errors in commercial software have not been widely reported. Here we evaluated the accuracy of deformable image registration (DIR) by using a physical phantom for MRI. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We used the "Wuphantom" for end-to-end testing of DIR accuracy for MRI. This acrylic phantom is filled with water and includes several fillable inserts to simulate various tissue shapes and properties. Deformations and changes in anatomic locations are simulated by changing the rotations of the phantom and inserts. We used Varian Velocity DIR software (v4.0) and CT (head and neck protocol) and MR (T1- and T2-weighted head protocol) images to test DIR accuracy between image modalities (MRI vs CT) and within the same image modality (MRI vs MRI) in 11 rotation deformation scenarios. Large inserts filled with Mobil DTE oil were used to simulate fatty tissue, and small inserts filled with agarose gel were used to simulate tissues slightly denser than water (e.g., prostate). Contours of all inserts were generated before DIR to provide a baseline for contour size and shape. DIR was done with the MR Correctable Deformable DIR method, and all deformed contours were compared with the original contours. The Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and mean distance to agreement (MDA) were used to quantitatively validate DIR accuracy. We also used large and small regions of interest (ROIs) during between-modality DIR tests to simulate validation of DIR accuracy for organs at risk (OARs) and propagation of individual clinical target volume (CTV) contours. RESULTS: No significant differences in DIR accuracy were found for T1:T1 and T2:T2 comparisons (P > 0.05). DIR was less accurate for between-modality comparisons than for same-modality comparisons, and was less accurate for T1 vs CT than for T2 vs CT (P < 0.001). For between-modality comparisons, use of a small ROI improved DIR accuracy for both T1 and T2 images. CONCLUSION: The simple design of the Wuphantom allows seamless testing of DIR; here we validated the accuracy of MRI DIR in end-to-end testing. T2 images had superior DIR accuracy compared with T1 images. Use of small ROIs improves DIR accuracy for target contour propagation.

Dosimetric and Radiobiological Evaluation of Patient Setup Accuracy in Head-and-neck Radiotherapy Using Daily Computed Tomography-on-rails-based Corrections.

INTRODUCTION: This study evaluates treatment plans aiming at determining the expected impact of daily patient setup corrections on the delivered dose distribution and plan parameters in head-and-neck radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, 10 head-and-neck cancer patients are evaluated. For the evaluation of daily changes of the patient internal anatomy, image-guided radiation therapy based on computed tomography (CT)-on-rails was used. The daily-acquired CT-on-rails images were deformedly registered to the CT scan that was used during treatment planning. Two approaches were used during data analysis ("cascade" and "one-to-all"). The dosimetric and radiobiological differences of the dose distributions with and without patient setup correction were calculated. The evaluation is performed using dose-volume histograms; the biologically effective uniform dose () and the complication-free tumor control probability (P+) were also calculated. The dose-response curves of each target and organ at risk (OAR), as well as the corresponding P+ curves, were calculated. RESULTS: The average difference for the "one-to-all" case is 0.6 ± 1.8 Gy and for the "cascade" case is 0.5 ± 1.8 Gy. The value of P+ was lowest for the cascade case (in 80% of the patients). DISCUSSION: Overall, the lowest PI is observed in the one-to-all cases. Dosimetrically, CT-on-rails data are not worse or better than the planned data. CONCLUSIONS: The differences between the evaluated "one-to-all" and "cascade" dose distributions were small. Although the differences of those doses against the "planned" dose distributions were small for the majority of the patients, they were large for given patients at risk and OAR.