A retrospective analysis of setup and intrafraction positional variation in stereotactic radiotherapy treatments.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive assessment of patient intrafraction motion in linac-based frameless stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and radiotherapy (SRT). METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on 101 intracranial SRS/SRT patients immobilized with the Klarity stereotactic thermoplastic mask (compatible with the Brainlab frameless stereotactic system) and aligned on a 6 Degree of Freedom (DoF) couch with the Brainlab ExacTrac image guidance system. Both pretreatment and intrafraction correction data are provided as observed by the ExacTrac system. The effects of couch angle and treatment duration on positioning outcomes are also explored. RESULTS: Initial setup data for patients is shown to vary by up to ±4.18 mm, ±2.97°, but when corrected with a single x-ray image set with ExacTrac, patient positions are corrected to within ±2.11 mm, ±2.27°. Intrafraction patient motion is shown to be uniformly random and independent of both time and couch angle. Patient motion was also limited to within approximately 3 mm, 3° by the thermoplastic mask. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that since patient intrafraction motion is unrelated to couch rotation and treatment duration, intrafraction patient monitoring in 6 DoF is required to minimize intracranial SRS/SRT margins.

The impact of a prophylactic skin dressing on surface-guided patient positioning in chest wall Radiation Therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Surface-guided radiation therapy (SGRT) has emerged as a powerful tool to improve patient setup accuracy in radiation therapy (RT). Combined with the goal of increasing RT accuracy is an ongoing effort to decrease RT side effects. The application of a prophylactic skin dressing to the treatment site is a well-documented method of reducing skin-related side effects from RT. This paper aims to investigate whether the application of Mepitel, a prophylactic skin dressing, has an impact on the accuracy of surface-guided patient setups in chest wall RT. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of daily image-guided Online Corrections (OLCs) from patients undergoing chest wall irradiation with SGRT was performed. Translational (superior-inferior, lateral, and anterior-posterior) OLC magnitude and direction were compared between patients treated with Mepitel applied and those treated without. Systematic and random errors were calculated and compared between groups. RESULTS: OLCs from 275 fractions were analysed. Mean OLCs were larger for patients with Mepitel applied in the superior_inferior axis (0.34 vs. 0.22 cm, P = 0.049) and for the combined translational vector (0.54 vs. 0.43 cm, P = 0.043). Combined translational systematic error was slightly larger for patients with Mepitel applied (0.15 vs. 0.09 cm). CONCLUSION: Mepitel can impact the accuracy of SGRT patient-positioning in chest wall RT. The variation however is small and unlikely to have any clinical impact if SGRT is coupled with image guidance and appropriate PTV margins. Further investigation is required to assess the effect of Mepitel on SGRT accuracy in other treatment sites, as well as any potential dosimetric impacts.

The Radiation Therapist profession through the lens of new technology: A practice development paper based on the ESTRO Radiation Therapist Workshops.

Technological advances in radiation therapy impact on the role and scope of practice of the radiation therapist. The European Society of Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) recently held two workshops on this topic and this position paper reflects the outcome of this workshop, which included radiation therapists from all global regions. Workflows, quality assurance, research, IGRT and ART as well as clinical decision making are the areas of radiation therapist practice that will be highly influenced by advancing technology in the near future. This position paper captures the opportunities that this will bring to the radiation therapist profession, to the practice of radiation therapy and ultimately to patient care.

Automation and artificial intelligence in radiation therapy treatment planning.

Automation and artificial intelligence (AI) is already possible for many radiation therapy planning and treatment processes with the aim of improving workflows and increasing efficiency in radiation oncology departments. Currently, AI technology is advancing at an exponential rate, as are its applications in radiation oncology. This commentary highlights the way AI has begun to impact radiation therapy treatment planning and looks ahead to potential future developments in this space. Historically, radiation therapist's (RT's) role has evolved alongside the adoption of new technology. In Australia, RTs have key clinical roles in both planning and treatment delivery and have been integral in the implementation of automated solutions for both areas. They will need to continue to be informed, to adapt and to transform with AI technologies implemented into clinical practice in radiation oncology departments. RTs will play an important role in how AI-based automation is implemented into practice in Australia, ensuring its application can truly enable personalised and higher-quality treatment for patients. To inform and optimise utilisation of AI, research should not only focus on clinical outcomes but also AI's impact on professional roles, responsibilities and service delivery. Increased efficiencies in the radiation therapy workflow and workforce need to maintain safe improvements in practice and should not come at the cost of creativity, innovation, oversight and safety.

Planning for a pandemic: Mitigating risk to radiation therapy service delivery in the COVID-19 era.

The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has rapidly impacted all of our lives following its escalation to pandemic status on 11 March 2020. Government guidelines and restrictions implemented to mitigate the risk of COVID-19 community transmission have forced radiation therapy departments to promptly adjust to the significant impact on our ability to deliver best clinical care. The inherent nature of our tri-partied professions relies heavily on multidisciplinary teamwork and patient-clinician interactions. Teamwork and patient interaction are critical to the role of a radiation therapist. The aim of this paper is to describe the experience of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre's (Peter Mac) radiation therapy services during the preliminary stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in minimising risk to patients, staff and our clinical service. Four critical areas were identified in developing risk mitigation strategies across our service: (a) Workforce planning, (b) Workforce communication, (c) Patient safety and wellbeing, and (d) Staff safety and wellbeing. Each of these initiatives had a focus on continuum of clinical care, whilst minimising risk of cross infection for our radiation therapy workforce and patients alike. Initiatives included, but were not limited to, establishing COVID-Eclipse clinical protocols, remote access to local applications, implementation of Microsoft Teams, personal protective equipment (PPE) guidelines and virtual 'Division of Radiation Oncology' briefing/updates. The COVID-19 pandemic has dictated change in conventional radiation therapy practice. It is hoped that by sharing our experiences, the radiation therapy profession will continue to learn, adapt and navigate this period together, to ensure optimal outcomes for ourselves and our patients.

Organ at risk delineation for radiation therapy clinical trials: Global Harmonization Group consensus guidelines.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Global Quality Assurance of Radiation Therapy Clinical Trials Harmonization Group (GHG) is a collaborative group of Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance (RTQA) Groups harmonizing and improving RTQA for multi-institutional clinical trials. The objective of the GHG OAR Working Group was to unify OAR contouring guidance across RTQA groups by compiling a single reference list of OARs in line with AAPM TG 263 and ASTRO, together with peer-reviewed, anatomically defined contouring guidance for integration into clinical trial protocols independent of the radiation therapy delivery technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The GHG OAR Working Group comprised of 22 multi-professional members from 6 international RTQA Groups and affiliated organizations conducted the work in 3 stages: (1) Clinical trial documentation review and identification of structures of interest (2) Review of existing contouring guidance and survey of proposed OAR contouring guidance (3) Review of survey feedback with recommendations for contouring guidance with standardized OAR nomenclature. RESULTS: 157 clinical trials were examined; 222 OAR structures were identified. Duplicates, non-anatomical, non-specific, structures with more specific alternative nomenclature, and structures identified by one RTQA group were excluded leaving 58 structures of interest. 6 OAR descriptions were accepted with no amendments, 41 required minor amendments, 6 major amendments, 20 developed as a result of feedback, and 5 structures excluded in response to feedback. The final GHG consensus guidance includes 73 OARs with peer-reviewed descriptions (Appendix A). CONCLUSION: We provide OAR descriptions with standardized nomenclature for use in clinical trials. A more uniform dataset supports the delivery of clinically relevant and valid conclusions from clinical trials.

Implementing user-defined atlas-based auto-segmentation for a large multi-centre organisation: the Australian Experience.

INTRODUCTION: Contouring has become an increasingly important aspect of radiation therapy due to inverse planning, and yet is extremely time-consuming. To improve contouring efficiency and reduce potential inter-observer variation, the atlas-based auto-segmentation (ABAS) function in Velocity was introduced to ICON cancer centres (ICC) throughout Australia as a solution for automatic contouring. METHODS: This paper described the implementation process of the ABAS function and the construction of user-defined atlas sets and compared the contouring efficiency before and after the introduction of ABAS. RESULTS: The results indicate that the main limitation to the ABAS performance was Velocity's sub-optimal atlas selection method. Three user-defined atlas sets were constructed. Results suggested that the introduction of the ABAS saved at least 5 minutes of manual contouring time (P < 0.05), although further verification was required due to limitations in the data collection method. The pilot rollout adopting a 'champion' approach was successful and provided an opportunity to improve the user-defined atlases prior to the national implementation. CONCLUSION: The implementation of user-defined ABAS for head and neck (H&N) and female thorax patients at ICCs was successful, which achieved at least 5 minutes of efficiency gain.