Robustness of intensity modulated proton treatment of esophageal cancer for anatomical changes and breathing motion.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In this study, we assessed the robustness of intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) in esophageal cancer for anatomical variations during treatment. METHODS: The first sixty esophageal cancer patients, treated clinically with chemoradiotherapy were included. The treatment planning strategy was based on an internal target volume (ITV) approach, where the ITV was created from the clinical target volumes (CTVs) delineated on all phases of a 4DCT. For optimization, a 3 mm isotropic margin was added to the ITV, combined with robust optimization using 5 mm setup and 3 % range uncertainty. Each patient received weekly repeat CTs (reCTs). Robust plan re-evaluation on all reCTs, and a robust dose summation was performed. To assess the factors influencing ITV coverage, a multivariate linear regression analysis was performed. Additionally, clinical adaptations were evaluated. RESULTS: The target coverage was adequate (ITV V94%>98 % on the robust voxel-wise minimum dose) on most reCTs (91 %), and on the summed dose in 92 % of patients. Significant predictors for ITV coverage in the multivariate analysis were diaphragm baseline shift and water equivalent depth (WED) of the ITV in the beam direction. Underdosage of the ITV mainly occurred in week 1 and 4, leading to treatment adaptation of eight patients, all on the first reCT. CONCLUSION: Our IMPT treatment of esophageal cancer is robust for anatomical variations. Adaptation appears to be most effective in the first week of treatment. Diaphragm baseline shifts and WED are predictive factors for ITV underdosage, and should be incorporated in an adaptation protocol.

Impact of clinical target volume margin reduction in glioblastoma patients treated with concurrent chemoradiation.

Background: Glioblastoma (GBM) is widely treated using large radiotherapy margins, resulting in substantial irradiation of the surrounding cerebral structures. In this context, the question arises whether these margins could be safely reduced. In 2018, clinical target volume (CTV) expansion was reduced in our institution from 20 to 15 mm around the gross target volume (GTV) (ie, the contrast-enhancing tumor/cavity). We sought to retrospectively analyze the impact of this reduction. Methods: All adult patients with GBM treated between January 2015 and December 2020 with concurrent chemoradiation (60Gy/2Gy or 59.4Gy/1.8Gy) were analyzed. Patients treated using a 20 (CTV20, n = 57) or 15 mm (CTV15, n = 56) CTV margin were compared for target volumes, dose parameters to the surrounding organs, pattern of recurrence, and survival outcome. Results: Mean GTV was similar in both groups (ie, CTV20: 39.7cm3; CTV15: 37.8cm3; P = .71). Mean CTV and PTV were reduced from 238.9cm3 to 176.7cm3 (P = .001) and from 292.6cm3 to 217.0cm3 (P < .001), for CTV20 and CTV15, respectively. As a result, average brain mean dose (Dmean) was reduced from 25.2Gy to 21.0Gy (P = .002). Significantly lower values were also observed for left hippocampus Dmean, brainstem D0.03cc, cochleas Dmean, and pituitary Dmean. Pattern of recurrence was similar, as well as patient outcome, ie, median progression-free survival was 8.0 and 7.0 months (P = .80), and median overall survival was 11.0 and 14.0 months (P = .61) for CTV20 and CTV15, respectively. Conclusions: In GBM patients treated with chemoradiation, reducing the CTV margin from 20 to 15 mm appears to be safe and offers the potential for less treatment toxicity.

The existence of cranial bone flap displacement during brain radiotherapy.

This retrospective study examined bone flap displacement during radiotherapy in 25 post-operative brain tumour patients. Though never exceeding 2.5 mm, the sheer frequency of displacement highlights the need for future research on larger populations to validate its presence and assess the potential clinical impact on planning tumour volume margins.