Implementation of the Calypso system: a commissioning experience.

Background: The aim of this study was to describe the clinical implementation of the Calypso system with its potential impact on the treatment delivery. Materials and methods: The influence of the electromagnetic array was investigated on the kilovoltage cone beam computed tomography (kV-CBCT) image quality using the CATPHAN 504 CBCT images. Then, the QFix kVue Calypso couch top and the array attenuation, and their dosimetric influence on the Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatments of prostate was evaluated. Results: Regarding the image quality, a significant increase of noise (p < 0.01) was detected with the array in place, resulting in a significant decrease in signal noise ratio (SNR) (p < 0.01). No difference in absolute contrast was observed. Finally, there was a significant decrease in contrast noise ratio (CNR) (p < 0.01) even if the deviation was only of 2.5%. For the dosimetric evaluation, the maximum attenuation of the couch was 12.02% and 13.19% for X6 and X6 flattening filter free (FFF), respectively (configuration of rails out). Besides, the mean attenuation of the array was 1.15% and 1.67% for X6 and X6 FFF, respectively. For the VMAT treatment plans, the mean dose was reduced by 0.61% for X6 and by 0.31% for X6 FFF beams when using the electromagnetic array. Conclusions: The Calypso system does not affect significantly the kV-CBCT image quality and the VMAT plan dose distribution.

Tracking, gating, free-breathing, which technique to use for lung stereotactic treatments? A dosimetric comparison.

BACKGROUND: The management of breath-induced tumor motion is a major challenge for lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Three techniques are currently available for these treatments: tracking (T), gating (G) and free-breathing (FB). AIM: To evaluate the dosimetric differences between these three treatment techniques for lung SBRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pretreatment 4DCT data were acquired for 10 patients and sorted into 10 phases of a breathing cycle, such as 0% and 50% phases defined respectively as the inhalation and exhalation maximum. GTVph, PTVph (=GTVph + 3 mm) and the ipsilateral lung were contoured on each phase.For the tracking technique, 9 fixed fields were adjusted to each PTVph for the 10 phases. The gating technique was studied with 3 exhalation phases (40%, 50% and 60%). For the free-breathing technique, ITVFB was created from a sum of all GTVph and a 3 mm margin was added to define a PTVFB. Fields were adjusted to PTVFB and dose distributions were calculated on the average intensity projection (AIP) CT. Then, the beam arrangement with the same monitor units was planned on each CT phase.The 3 modalities were evaluated using DVHs of each GTVph, the homogeneity index and the volume of the ipsilateral lung receiving 20 Gy (V 20Gy). RESULTS: The FB system improved the target coverage by increasing D mean (75.87(T)-76.08(G)-77.49(FB)Gy). Target coverage was slightly more homogeneous, too (HI: 0.17(T and G)-0.15(FB)). But the lung was better protected with the tracking system (V 20Gy: 3.82(T)-4.96(G)-6.34(FB)%). CONCLUSIONS: Every technique provides plans with a good target coverage and lung protection. While irradiation with free-breathing increases doses to GTV, irradiation with the tracking technique spares better the lung but can dramatically increase the treatment complexity.

Evaluation of reproducibility of tumor repositioning during multiple breathing cycles for liver stereotactic body radiotherapy treatment.

AIM: To evaluate the tumor repositioning during gated volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for liver stereotactic body radiotherapy(SBRT) treatment using implanted fiducial markers and intrafraction kilovoltage (kV) images acquired during dose delivery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Since 2012, 47 liver cancer patients with implanted fiducial markers were treated using the gated VMAT technique with a Varian Truebeam STx linear accelerator. The fiducial markers were implanted inside or close to the tumor target before treatment simulation. They were defined at the maximum inhalation and exhalation phases on a 4-dimensionnal computed tomography (4DCT) acquisition. During the treatment, kV images were acquired just before the beam-on at each breathing cycle at maximum exhalation and inhalation phases to verify the fiducial markers positions. For the five first fractions of treatment in the first ten consecutive patients, a total of 2705 intrafraction kV images were retrospectively analyzed to assess the differences between expected and actual positions of the fiducial markers along the cranio-caudal (CC) direction during the exhalation phase. RESULTS: The mean absolute intrafractional fiducial marker deviation along the CC direction was 1.0 mm at the maximum exhalation phase. In 99%, 95% and 90% cases, the fiducial marker deviations were ≤4.5 mm, 2.8 mm and 2.2 mm, respectively. CONCLUSION: Intrafraction kV images allowed us to ensure the consistency of tumor repositioning during treatment. In 99% cases, the fiducial marker deviations were ≤4.5 mm corresponding to our 5 mm treatment margin. This margin seems to be well-adapted to the gated VMAT SBRT treatment in liver disease.

Imaged-guided liver stereotactic body radiotherapy using VMAT and real-time adaptive tumor gating. Concerns about technique and preliminary clinical results.

BACKGROUND: Motion management is a major challenge in abdominal SBRT. We present our study of SBRT for liver tumors using intrafraction motion review (IMR) allowing simultaneous KV information and MV delivery to synchronize the beam during gated RapidArc treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between May 2012 and March 2015, 41 patients were treated by liver SBRT using gated RapidArc technique in a Varian Novalis Truebeam STx linear accelerator. PTV was created by expanding 5 mm from the ITV. Dose prescription ranged from 40 to 50 Gy in 5-10 fractions. The prescribed dose and fractionation were chosen depending on hepatic function and dosimetric results. Thirty-four patients with a minimal follow-up of six months were analyzed for local control and toxicity. Accuracy for tumor repositioning was evaluated for the first ten patients. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 13 months, the treatment was well tolerated and no patient presented RILD, perforation or gastrointestinal bleeding. Acute toxicity was found in 3 patients with G1 abdominal pain, 2 with G1 nausea, 10 with G1 asthenia and 1 with G2 asthenia. 6 patients presented asymptomatic transitory perturbation of liver enzymes. In-field local control was 90.3% with 7 complete responses, 14 partial responses and 7 stabilisations. 3 patients evolved "in field". 12 patients had an intrahepatic progression "out of field". Mean intrafraction deviation of fiducials in the craneo-caudal direction was 0.91 mm (0-6 mm). CONCLUSION: The clinical tolerance and oncological outcomes were favorable when using image-guided liver SBRT with real-time adaptive tumor gating.

SBRT planning for liver metastases: A focus on immobilization, motion management and planning imaging techniques.

AIM: To evaluate the different techniques used for liver metastases Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) planning. We especially focused on immobilization devices, motion management and imaging used for contouring. BACKGROUND: Although some guidelines exist, there is no consensus regarding the minimal requirements for liver SBRT treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the main liver metastases SBRT publications and guidelines; and compared the techniques used for immobilization, motion management, margins and imaging. RESULTS: There is a wide variety of techniques used for immobilization, motion management and planning imaging. CONCLUSIONS: We provide a subjective critical analysis of minimal requirements and ideal technique for liver SBRT planning.

Comparison of volumetric-modulated arc therapy and dynamic conformal arc treatment planning for cranial stereotactic radiosurgery.

The aim was to analyze arc therapy techniques according to the number and position of the brain lesions reported by comparing dynamic noncoplanar conformal arcs (DCA), two coplanar full arcs (RAC) with volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), multiple noncoplanar partial arcs with VMAT (RANC), and two full arcs with VMAT and 10° table rotation (RAT). Patients with a single lesion (n= 10), multiple lesions (n = 10) or a single lesion close to organs at risk (n = 5) and previously treated with DCA were selected. For each patient, the DCA treatment was replanned with all VMAT techniques. All DCA plans were compared with VMAT plans and evaluated in regard to the different quality indices and dosimetric parameters. For single lesion, homogeneity index (HI) better results were found for the RANC technique (0.17 ± 0.05) compared with DCA procedure (0.27± 0.05). Concerning conformity index (CI), the RAT technique gave higher and better values (0.85 ± 0.04) compared with those obtained with the DCA technique (0.77 ± 0.05). DCA improved healthy brain protection (8.35 ± 5.61 cc vs. 10.52 ± 6.40 cc for RANC) and reduced monitor unit numbers (3046 ± 374 MU vs. 4651 ± 736 for RANC), even if global room occupation was higher. For multiple lesions, VMAT techniques provided better HI (0.16) than DCA (0.24 ± 0.07). The CI was improved with RAT (0.8 ± 0.08 for RAT vs. 0.71 ± 0.08 for DCA). The V10Gy healthy brain was better protected with DCA (9.27 ± 4.57 cc). Regarding the MU numbers: RANC < RAT< RAC < DCA. For a single lesion close to OAR, RAT achieved high degrees of homogeneity (0.27 ± 0.03 vs. 0.53 ± 0.2 for DCA) and conformity (0.72± 0.06vs. 0.56 ± 0.13 for DCA) while sparing organs at risk (Dmax = 12.36 ± 1.05Gyvs. 14.12 ± 0.59 Gy for DCA, and Dmean = 3.96 ± 3.57Gyvs. 4.72 ± 3.28Gy for DCA). On the other hand, MU numbers were lower with DCA (2254 ± 190 MUvs. 3438 ± 457 MU for RANC) even if overall time was inferior with RAC. For a single lesion, DCA provide better plan considering low doses to healthy brain even if quality indexes are better for the others techniques. For multiple lesions, RANC seems to be the best compromise, due to the ability to deliver a good conformity and homogeneity plan while sparing healthy brain tissue. For a single lesion close to organs at risk, RAT is the most appropriate technique.

Simultaneous integrated boost plan comparison of volumetric-modulated arc therapy and sliding window intensity-modulated radiotherapy for whole pelvis irradiation of locally advanced prostate cancer.

Concurrent radiotherapy to the pelvis plus a prostate boost with long-term androgen deprivation is a standard of care for locally advanced prostate cancer. IMRT has the ability to deliver highly conformal dose to the target while lowering irradiation of critical organs around the prostate. Volumetric-modulated arc therapy is able to reduce treatment time, but its impact on organ sparing is still controversial when compared to static gantry IMRT. We compared the two techniques in simultaneous integrated boost plans. Ten patients with locally advanced prostate cancer were included. The planning target volume (PTV) 1 was defined as the pelvic lymph nodes, the prostate, and the seminal vesicles plus setup margins. The PTV2 consisted of the prostate with setup margins. The prescribed doses to PTV1 and PTV2 were 54 Gy in 37 fractions and 74 Gy in 37 fractions, respectively. We compared simultaneous integrated boost plans by means of either a seven coplanar static split fields IMRT, or a one-arc (RA1) and a two-arc (RA2) RapidArc planning. All three techniques allowed acceptable homogeneity and PTV coverage. Static IMRT enabled a better homogeneity for PTV2 than RapidArc techniques. Sliding window IMRT and VMAT permitted to maintain doses to OAR within acceptable levels with a low risk of side effects for each organ. VMAT plans resulted in a clinically and statistically significant reduction in doses to bladder (mean dose IMRT: 50.1 ± 4.6Gy vs. mean dose RA2: 47.1 ± 3.9 Gy, p = 0.037), rectum (mean dose IMRT: 44± 4.5 vs. mean dose RA2: 41.6 ± 5.5 Gy, p = 0.006), and small bowel (V30 IMRT: 76.47 ± 14.91% vs. V30 RA2: 47.49 ± 16.91%, p = 0.002). Doses to femoral heads were higher with VMAT but within accepted constraints. Our findings suggest that simultaneous integrated boost plans using VMAT and sliding window IMRT allow good OAR sparing while maintaining PTV coverage within acceptable levels.

Feasibility study of adaptive radiotherapy with Ethos for breast cancer.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of online adaptive radiotherapy with Ethos for breast cancer. Materials and methods: This retrospective study included 20 breast cancer patients previously treated with TrueBeam. All had undergone breast surgery for different indications (right/left, lumpectomy/mastectomy) and were evenly divided between these four cases, with five extended cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans per patient. The dataset was used in an Ethos emulator to test the full adaptive workflow. The contours generated by artificial intelligence (AI) for the influencers (left and right breasts and lungs, heart) and elastic or rigid propagation for the target volumes (internal mammary chain (IMC) and clavicular lymph nodes (CLNs)) were compared to the initial contours delineated by the physician using two metrics: Dice similarity coefficient (DICE) and Hausdorff 95% distance (HD95). The repeatability of influencer generation was investigated. The times taken by the emulator to generate contours, optimize plans, and calculate doses were recorded. The quality of the scheduled and adapted plans generated by Ethos was assessed using planning target volume (PTV) coverage, homogeneity indices (HIs), and doses to organs at risk (OARs) via dose-volume histogram (DVH) metrics. Quality assurance (QA) of the treatment plans was performed using an independent portal dosimetry tool (EpiQA) and gamma index. Results: On average, the DICE for the influencers was greater than 0.9. Contours resulting from rigid propagation had a higher DICE and a lower HD95 than those resulting from elastic deformation but remained below the values obtained for the influencers: DICE values were 0.79 ± 0.11 and 0.46 ± 0.17 for the CLN and IMC, respectively. Regarding the repeatability of the influencer segmentation, the DICE was close to 1, and the mean HD95 was strictly less than 0.15 mm. The mean time was 73 ± 4 s for contour generation per AI and 80 ± 9 s for propagations. The average time was 53 ± 3 s for dose calculation and 125 ± 9 s for plan optimization. A dosimetric comparison of scheduled and adapted plans showed a significant difference in PTV coverage: dose received by 95% of the volume (D95%) values were higher and closer to the prescribed doses for adapted plans. Doses to organs at risk were similar. The average gamma index for quality assurance of adapted plans was 99.93 ± 0.38 for a 3%/3mm criterion. Conclusion: This study comprehensively evaluated the Ethos® adaptive workflow for breast cancer and its potential technical limitations. Although the results demonstrated the high accuracy of AI segmentation and the superiority of adapted plans in terms of target volume coverage, a medical assessment is still required.

A prospective registry study of stereotactic magnetic resonance guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) for primary liver tumors.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has demonstrated safe and effective results for primary liver tumors. Magnetic Resonance guided Radiotherapy (MRgRT) is an innovative radiotherapy modality for abdominal tumors. The aim of this study is to report on acute and late toxicities and initial oncological results for primary liver tumors treated with MRgRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively included in our cohort all patients treated by MRgRT for a primary liver tumor at the Montpellier Cancer Institute. The primary endpoint was acute and late toxicities assessed according to CTCAE v 5.0. The mean prescribed dose was 50 Gy in 5 fractions. RESULTS: Between October 2019 and April 2022, MRgRT treated 56 patients for 72 primary liver lesions. No acute or late toxicities of CTCAE grade greater than 2 attributable to radiotherapy were noted during follow-up. No cases of radiation-induced liver disease (RILD), either classical or non-classical, occurred. After a median follow-up of 13.2 months (95% CI [8.8; 15.7]), overall survival was 85.1% (95% CI: [70.8; 92.7]) at 1 year and 74.2% at 18 months (95% CI [52.6; 87.0]). Local control was 98.1% (95% CI: [87.4; 99.7]) and 94.7% (95% CI: [79.5; 98.7]) at 12 and 18 months, respectively. Among the HCC subgroup, no local recurrences were observed. CONCLUSION: MRgRT for primary liver tumors is safe without severe adverse events and reach excellent local control. Numerous studies are underway to better assess the value of MRI guidance and adaptive process in these indications.

Stereotactic MR-Guided Radiotherapy for Liver Metastases: First Results of the Montpellier Prospective Registry Study.

Liver stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is a local treatment that provides good local control and low toxicity. We present the first clinical results from our prospective registry of stereotactic MR-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) for liver metastases. All patients treated for liver metastases were included in this prospective registry study. Stereotactic MRgRT indication was confirmed by multidisciplinary specialized tumor boards. The primary endpoints were acute and late toxicities. The secondary endpoints were survival outcomes (local control, overall survival (OS), disease-free survival, intrahepatic relapse-free survival). Twenty-six consecutive patients were treated for thirty-one liver metastases between October 2019 and April 2022. The median prescribed dose was 50 Gy (40-60) in 5 fractions. No severe acute MRgRT-related toxicity was noted. Acute and late gastrointestinal and liver toxicities were low and mostly unrelated to MRgRT. Only 5 lesions (16.1%) required daily adaptation because of the proximity of organs at risk (OAR). With a median follow-up time of 17.3 months since MRgRT completion, the median OS, 1-year OS and 2-year OS rates were 21.7 months, 83.1% (95% CI: 55.3-94.4%) and 41.6% (95% CI: 13.5-68.1%), respectively, from MRgRT completion. The local control at 6 months, 1 year and 2 years was 90.9% (95% CI: 68.3-97.7%). To our knowledge, we report the largest series of stereotactic MRgRT for liver metastases. The treatment was well-tolerated and achieved a high LC rate. Distant relapse remains a challenge in this population.

Efficacy, safety, and feasibility of volumetric modulated arc therapy for synchronous bilateral breast cancer management.

Purpose: Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) exhibits potent advantages regarding target volume coverage and protection of organs at risk, notably in the context of anatomical constraints. Nevertheless, reports concerning VMAT for the treatment of synchronous bilateral breast cancers (SBBC) have been scarce to date. As such, we conducted this observational study to assess efficacy, safety and feasibility of VMAT in SBBC. Materials and Methods: From August 2011 to December 2017, 54 consecutive patients with SBBC with or without axillary nodes involvement underwent a treatment protocol containing radiotherapy using VMAT. A total dose (TD) of 52.2Gy in 29 fractions was delivered to breast and internal mammary chain (IMC) nodes Planning Target Volume (PTV) plus, if applicable, a TD of 49.3Gy in 29 fractions to the supra- and infra-clavicular nodes PTV and a TD of 63.22Gy in 29 fractions to tumor boost PTV. Lungs, heart, esophagus, trachea, liver, thyroid and spinal cord were considered as organs at risk. VMAT feasibility and organ at risk sparing were evaluated by treatments planning of the 20 first enrolled patients. Tolerance and patients' outcome were prospectively monitored by acute/late toxicities records and by the analysis of overall survival (OS), locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). Results: Breast, supraclavicular nodes and boost PTV coverage was adequate with at least 98% of PTV encompassed by more than 95% of the prescribed dose. Less than 90% of IMC PTV was encompassed by 95% of the prescribed dose. Mean lung dose was 12.3Gy (range: 7.7 - 18.7); mean heart dose was 10.7Gy (range: 6.2 - 22.3). Concerning acute toxicities, only 2 patients experienced grade 3 skin toxicity (3.7%) and only 1 patient developed grade 1 pneumonitis. After a median follow-up of 5.3 years, grade 2 fibrosis and/or shrinking was observed in 5 patients (10%), and grade 3 fibrosis in 1 patients (2%). The 5-year LRFS-rate, RFS-rate and OS were 98% [95% CI= 86.12-99.70%], 96% [95% CI= 84.63-98.96%] and 100%, respectively.

Magnetic Resonance-Guided Reirradiation for Local Recurrence within the Prostate or in the Prostate Bed: One-Year Clinical Results of a Prospective Registry Study.

Around 33% of patients treated by EBRT or brachytherapy will present a biochemical recurrence. SBRT is a new option for the treatment of patients with local-only recurrence. MRgRT seems to be interesting for the treatment of these recurrences. This article presents the one-year late tolerance and biochemical recurrence-free survival results of a prospective registry study. Patients with intraprostatic (or in the prostate bed) recurrence were treated with 5 to 9 fractions (median dose of 30 Gy in 5 fractions) with the MRIdian® system. PSA level and toxicities were evaluated before treatment and at three, six and 12 months after treatment. Thirty-seven patients with a median age of 74.5 years old were treated between 21 October 2019 and 7 December 2020. Acute tolerance was excellent with no grade >2 toxicities. Twelve months after treatment, we observed an increase of grade 1−2 dysuria (46% vs. 13% before treatment) and grade 1 polyuria (73% vs. 7%). The six, nine and 12-months biochemical-recurrence free survival were 97.3%, 86.5% and 65.0%. Fifteen patients (40%) presented a biochemical recurrence. Nine of these 15 patients (60%) had a persistent disease within the treated volume. In conclusion, MRgRT is safe and has promising survival results.

Stereotactic MR-Guided Adaptive Radiotherapy for Pancreatic Tumors: Updated Results of the Montpellier Prospective Registry Study.

Introduction: Stereotactic MR-guided Adaptive RadioTherapy (SMART) is a novel process to treat pancreatic tumors. We present an update of the data from our prospective registry of SMART for pancreatic tumors. Materials and methods: After the establishment of the SMART indication in a multidisciplinary board, we included all patients treated for pancreatic tumors. Primary endpoints were acute and late toxicities. Secondary endpoints were survival outcomes (local control, overall survival, distant metastasis free survival) and dosimetric advantages of adaptive process on targets volumes and OAR. Results: We included seventy consecutive patients in our cohort between October 2019 and April 2022. The prescribed dose was 50 Gy in 5 consecutive fractions. No severe acute SMART related toxicity was noted. Acute and late Grade ≤ 2 gastro intestinal were low. Daily adaptation significantly improved PTV and GTV coverage as well as OAR sparing. With a median follow-up of 10.8 months since SMART completion, the median OS, 6-months OS, and 1-year OS were 20.9 months, 86.7% (95% CI: (75−93%), and 68.6% (95% CI: (53−80%), respectively, from SMART completion. Local control at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years were, respectively, 96.8 % (95% CI: 88−99%), 86.5 (95% CI: 68−95%), and 80.7% (95% CI: 59−92%). There was no grade > 2 late toxicities. Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancers (LAPC) and Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancers (BRPC) patients (52 patients) had a median OS, 6-months OS, and 1-year OS from SMART completion of 15.2 months, 84.4% (95% CI: (70−92%)), and 60.5% (95% CI: (42−75%)), respectively. The median OS, 1-year OS, and 2-year OS from initiation of induction chemotherapy were 22.3 months, 91% (95% CI: (78−97%)), and 45.8% (95% CI: (27−63%)), respectively. Twenty patients underwent surgical resection (38.7 % of patients with initially LAPC) with negative margins (R0). Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the largest series of SMART for pancreatic tumors. The treatment was well tolerated with only low-grade toxicities. Long-term OS and LC rates were achieved. SMART achieved high secondary resection rates in LAPC patients.

Stereotactic MR-Guided Radiotherapy for Adrenal Gland Metastases: First Clinical Results.

Stereotactic MR-guided Radiotherapy (MRgRT) is an interesting treatment option for adrenal gland metastases (AGM). We reviewed data from 12 consecutive patients treated with MRgRT for an AGM in our center between 14 November 2019 and 17 August 2021. Endpoints were tolerance assessment, the impact of adaptive treatment on target volume coverage and organs at risk (OAR) sparing, local control (LC), and overall survival (OS). The majority of patients were oligometastatic (58.3%), with 6 right AGM, 5 left AGM and 1 left and right AGM. The prescribed dose was 35 to 50 Gy in 3 to 5 fractions. The median PTV V95% on the initial plan was 95.74%. The median V95% of the PTVoptimized (PTVopt) on the initial plan was 95.26%. Thirty-eight (69%) fractions were adapted. The PTV coverage was significantly improved for adapted plans compared to predicted plans (median PTV V95% increased from 89.85% to 91.17%, p = 0.0478). The plan adaptation also significantly reduced Dmax for the stomach and small intestine. The treatment was well tolerated with no grade > 2 toxicities. With a median follow-up of 15.5 months, the 1−year LC and OS rate were 100% and 91.7%. Six patients (50%) presented a metastatic progression, and one patient (8.3%) died of metastatic evolution during the follow-up. Adaptation of the treatment plan improved the overall dosimetric quality of MRI-guided radiotherapy. A longer follow-up is required to assess late toxicities and clinical results.

Stereotactic MR-Guided Radiotherapy for Pancreatic Tumors: Dosimetric Benefit of Adaptation and First Clinical Results in a Prospective Registry Study.

Introduction: Stereotactic MR-guided adaptive radiotherapy (SMART) is an attractive modality of radiotherapy for pancreatic tumors. The objectives of this prospective registry study were to report the dosimetric benefits of daily adaptation of SMART and the first clinical results in pancreatic tumors. Materials and Methods: All patients treated in our center with SMART for a pancreatic tumor were included. Patients were planned for five daily-adapted fractions on consecutive days. Endpoints were acute toxicities, late toxicities, impact of adaptive treatment on target volume coverage and organs at risk (OAR) sparing, local control (LC) rate, distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and overall survival (OS). Results: Thirty consecutive patients were included between October 2019 and April 2021. The median dose prescription was 50 Gy. No patient presented grade > 2 acute toxicities. The most frequent grade 1-2 toxicities were asthenia (40%), abdominal pain (40%), and nausea (43%). Daily adaptation significantly improved planning target volume (PTV) and gross tumor volume (GTV) coverage and OAR sparing. With a median follow-up of 9.7 months, the median OS, 6-month OS, and 1-year OS were 14.1 months, 89% (95% CI: 70%-96%), and 75% (95% CI: 51%-88%), respectively, from SMART completion. LC at 6 months and 1 year was respectively 97% (95% CI: 79-99.5%) and 86% (95% CI: 61%-95%). There were no grade > 2 late toxicities. With a median follow-up of 10.64 months, locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) patients (22 patients) had a median OS, 6-month OS, and 1-year OS from SMART completion of 14.1 months, 76% (95% CI: 51%-89%), and 70% (95% CI: 45%-85%), respectively. Nine patients underwent surgical resection (42.1% of patients with initial LAPC and 33.3% of patients with BRPC), with negative margins (R0). Resected patients had a significantly better OS as compared to unresected patients (p = 0.0219, hazard ratio (HR) = 5.78 (95% CI: 1.29-25.9)). Conclusion: SMART for pancreatic tumors is feasible without limiting toxicities. Daily adaptation demonstrated a benefit for tumor coverage and OAR sparing. The severity of observed acute and late toxicities was low. OS and LC rates were promising. SMART achieved a high secondary resection rate in LAPC patients. Surgery after SMART seemed to be feasible and might increase OS in these patients.

Image-Guided Liver Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy Using VMAT and Real-Time Adaptive Tumor Gating: Evaluation of the Efficacy and Toxicity for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Liver SBRT is a therapeutic option for the treatment of HCC in patients not eligible for other local therapies. We retrospectively report the outcomes of a cohort of consecutive patients treated with SBRT for HCC at the Montpellier Cancer Institute. Between March 2013 and December 2018, 66 patients were treated with image-guided liver SBRT using VMAT and real-time adaptive tumor gating in our institute. The main endpoints considered in this study were local control, disease-free survival, overall survival, and toxicity. The median follow-up was 16.8 months. About 66.7% had prior liver treatment. Most patients received 50 Gy in five fractions of 10 Gy. No patient had local recurrence. Overall survival and disease-free survival were, respectively, 83.9% and 46.7% at one year. In multivariate analysis, the diameter of the lesions was a significant prognostic factor associated with disease-free survival (HR = 2.57 (1.19-5.53) p = 0.02). Regarding overall survival, the volume of PTV was associated with lower overall survival (HR = 2.84 (1.14-7.08) p = 0.025). No grade 3 toxicity was observed. One patient developed a grade 4 gastric ulcer, despite the dose constraints being respected. Image-guided liver SBRT with VMAT is an effective and safe treatment in patients with inoperable HCC, even in heavily pre-treated patients. Further prospective evaluation will help to clarify the role of SBRT in the management of HCC patients.

Magnetic Resonance-Guided Reirradiation for Local Recurrence Within the Prostate or in the Prostate Bed: Preliminary Results of a Prospective Registry Study.

PURPOSE: This prospective registry study evaluated the feasibility of stereotactic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided radiation therapy for the local treatment of isolated prostate cancer recurrence within the gland or prostate bed after primary radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with isolated recurrence without any regional or distant extension after treatment by external radiation therapy of the prostate gland/bed or by prostate brachytherapy were included. A 173-second Fast Imaging with Steady state Precession (TrueFISP) sequence was used for MRI simulation, and the gross tumor volume was delineated using multimodal images. The initial treatment plan varied from 27.5 Gy in 5 fractions to 38.7 Gy in 9 fractions and was adapted at each session, if necessary. The primary endpoint was acute toxicities (according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0 criteria). Secondary endpoints were the effects of the adaptive treatment on target volume coverage, late toxicities, and oncologic events. RESULTS: Twenty patients were included. After a minimum follow-up of 6 months, grade 2 dysuria (from grade 1 at baseline; n = 1), grade 2 polyuria (n = 1), grade 1 urinary incontinence (n = 1), grade 1 urinary pain (n = 2), and grade 1 diarrhea (n = 1) were reported.All initial treatment plans met the tumor coverage objectives, with a mean 95% planning target volume value of 95.7%. No plan exceeded the bladder and rectum dose constraints, but 8 exceeded the urethra dose constraints because of urethra proximity to the planning target volume. The initial plan was adapted in 7 patients (35%). The tumor coverage improved by 3.7% compared with the predicted plan (P = .0001) without increase in the dose to organs at risk. The biochemical control rate for the whole cohort was 75% (15/20 patients) including the 4 patients who received androgen-deprivation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: MRI-guided reirradiation for isolated recurrence within the prostate or in the prostate bed appears to be safe with excellent dosimetric results.

Intraoperative partial irradiation for highly selected patients with breast cancer: Results of the INTRAOBS prospective study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate our long-term experience on one-day breast intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) given as sole radiation treatment to selected patients with breast cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Inclusion criteria of INTRAOBS study (prospective observational study) were: ER+ T1N0 unifocal ductal carcinoma; absence of lymphovascular invasion or of extensive intraductal component (Scarff-Bloom-Richardson grade III and HER2+++ excluded). Two different linacs were used (20Gy/1 fraction): one dedicated electron linac (

Long-term follow-up experience in anal canal cancer treated with Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy: Clinical outcomes, patterns of relapse and predictors of failure.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To assess the long-term outcomes of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal (SCCAC) treated with Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: From 2007 to 2015, 193 patients were treated by IMRT for SCCAC. Radiotherapy delivered 45 Gy in 1.8 Gy daily-fractions to the primary tumor and elective nodal areas, immediately followed by a boost of 14.4-20 Gy to the primary tumor and involved nodes. Concurrent chemotherapy with 5-FU-mitomycin (MMC) or cisplatin was added for locally advanced tumors. Survivals were estimated by Kaplan-Meier method. Locoregional (LR) relapses were precisely assessed. Prognostic factors were evaluated by uni- and multivariate analyses. Late toxicity was scored according to the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 70 months (range, 1-131). Forty-nine men (25%) and 144 women (75%) were analyzed. Median age was 62 years. Tumor stages were I, II, III and IV in 7%, 24%, 63% and 6% of cases, respectively. Chemotherapy was delivered in 167 patients (87%), mainly MMC (80%). Five-year OS, DFS, CFS and LR control rates were 74%, 68%, 66% and 85%, respectively. Forty-one patients (21%) had a relapse: 22 were LR, mostly in-field (68%). Predictors for LR failure were exclusive radiotherapy, chemotherapy lacking MMC and treatment breaks >3 days. Overall late toxicity ≥grade 2 occurred in 43% of patients, with 24% grade 3 and one case of grade 4 (hematuria). CONCLUSION: CRT with IMRT assures excellent local control in locally advanced SCCAC with manageable long-term toxicity. Multicentric prospective trials are required to reinforce those results.

Persistently better treatment planning results of intensity-modulated (IMRT) over conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) in prostate cancer patients with significant variation of clinical target volume and/or organs-at-risk.

PURPOSE: To compare the dose coverage of planning and clinical target volume (PTV, CTV), and organs-at-risk (OAR) between intensity-modulated (3D-IMRT) and conventional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) before and after internal organ variation in prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We selected 10 patients with clinically significant interfraction volume changes. Patients were treated with 3D-IMRT to 80 Gy (minimum PTV dose of 76 Gy, excluding rectum). Fictitious, equivalent 3D-CRT plans (80 Gy at isocenter, with 95% isodose (76 Gy) coverage of PTV, with rectal blocking above 76 Gy) were generated using the same planning CT data set ("CT planning"). The plans were then also applied to a verification CT scan ("CT verify") obtained at a different moment. PTV, CTV, and OAR dose coverage were compared using non-parametric tests statistics for V95, V90 (% of the volume receiving 95 or 90% of the dose) and D50 (dose to 50% of the volume). RESULTS: Mean V95 of the PTV for "CT planning" was 94.3% (range, 88-99) vs 89.1% (range, 84-94.5) for 3D-IMRT and 3D-CRT (p=0.005), respectively. Mean V95 of the CTV for "CT verify" was 97% for both 3D-IMRT and 3D-CRT. Mean D50 of the rectum for "CT planning" was 26.8 Gy (range, 22-35) vs 43.5 Gy (range, 33.5-50.5) for 3D-IMRT and 3D-CRT (p=0.0002), respectively. For "CT verify", this D50 was 31.1 Gy (range, 16.5-44) vs 44.2 Gy (range, 34-55) for 3D-IMRT and 3D-CRT (p=0.006), respectively. V95 of the rectum was 0% for both plans for "CT planning", and 2.3% (3D-IMRT) vs 2.1% (3D-CRT) for "CT verify" (p=non-sig.). CONCLUSION: Dose coverage of the PTV and OAR was better with 3D-IMRT for each patient and remained so after internal volume changes.