High Rates of Organ Preservation in Rectal Cancer with Papillon Contact X-ray Radiotherapy: Results from a Swiss Cohort.

Rectal cancer typically necessitates a combination of radiotherapy (RT), chemotherapy, and surgery. The associated functional disorders and reduction in quality of life have led to an increasing interest in organ preservation strategies. Response strongly correlates with RT dose, but dose escalation with external beam remains limited even with modern external beam RT techniques because of toxicity of the surrounding tissues. This study reports on the use of Papillon, an endocavitary Radiotherapy device, in the treatment of rectal cancer. The device delivers low energy X-rays, allowing for safe dose escalation and better complete response rate. Between January 2015 and February 2024, 24 rectal cancer patients were treated with the addition of a boost delivered by Papillon to standard RT, with or without chemotherapy, in an upfront organ preservation strategy. After a median follow-up (FU) of 43 months, the organ preservation rate was 96% (23/24), and the local relapse rate was 8% (2/24). None of our patients developed grade 3 or more toxicities. Our results demonstrate that the addition of Papillon contact RT provides a high rate of local remission with sustained long-term organ preservation, offering a promising alternative to traditional surgical approaches in patients with rectal cancer.

Case Report: Treatment Planning Study to Demonstrate Feasibility of Transthoracic Ultrasound Guidance to Facilitate Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation With Protons.

Background: Cardiac arrhythmias, such as ventricular tachycardia, are disruptions in the normal cardiac function that originate from problems in the electrical conduction of signals inside the heart. Recently, a non-invasive treatment option based on external photon or proton beam irradiation has been used to ablate the arrhythmogenic structures. Especially in proton therapy, based on its steep dose gradient, it is crucial to monitor the motion of the heart in order to ensure that the radiation dose is delivered to the correct location. Transthoracic ultrasound imaging has the potential to provide guidance during this treatment delivery. However, it has to be noted that the presence of an ultrasound probe on the chest of the patient introduces constraints on usable beam angles for both protons and photon treatments. This case report investigates the possibility to generate a clinically acceptable proton treatment plan while the ultrasound probe is present on the chest of the patient. Case: A treatment plan study was performed based on a 4D cardiac-gated computed tomography scan of a 55 year-old male patient suffering from refractory ventricular tachycardia who underwent cardiac radioablation. A proton therapy treatment plan was generated for the actual treatment target in presence of an ultrasound probe on the chest of this patient. The clinical acceptability of the generated plan was confirmed by evaluating standard target dose-volume metrics, dose to organs-at-risk and target dose conformity and homogeneity. Conclusion: The generation of a clinically acceptable proton therapy treatment plan for cardiac radioablation of ventricular tachycardia could be performed in the presence of an ultrasound probe on the chest of the patient. These results establish a basis and justification for continued research and product development for ultrasound-guided cardiac radioablation.

Comparison of electromagnetic transmitter and ultrasound imaging for intrafraction monitoring of prostate radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To compare two in-beam monitoring devices for prostate radiotherapy: intra-prostatic electromagnetic transmitters (EM-T) (RayPilot®, Micropos Medical) and ultrasound imaging using transperineal probe (TP-US) (Clarity®, Elekta) used concomitantly on phantom and on patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The phantom study evaluated accuracy in presence of known translations and rotations. Then intra-fraction motions were analyzed for 10 prostate cancer patients implanted with the EM-T 8 days before the simulation CT (171 sessions). The percent time in which the differences between the systems were 1-5 mm were scored for each direction. RESULTS: Experiments on phantom confirmed no interference between the systems and showed deviations of less than 0.5 mm when translations were applied progressively. In presence of rotations (5-15°), both systems displayed systematic shifts up to 6.9 and 3.8 mm for the TP-US and the EM-T, respectively. Absolute mean differences between displacements observed on patients with EM-T and TP-US were ≤0.55 mm in all directions except for one patient (≤1.77 mm). With an exception for this patient, a strong correlation was found in left-right direction: differences >2 mm were monitored less than 0.22% of the time (mean acquisition time:164 minutes) and never exceeded 5 s. Maximum differences were observed in supero-inferior direction with differences >2 mm monitored more than 6.5% of the time for 3 patients. Large prostate rotations, the presence of gas and EM-T location in the prostate may explain important differences. CONCLUSION: Apart from the systematic shifts induced by the rotations, the two systems were correlated and represent feasible solutions for monitoring prostate cancer treatment.

Evaluation of a new transperineal ultrasound probe for inter-fraction image-guidance for definitive and post-operative prostate cancer radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate a new system based on transperineal ultrasound (TP-US) acquisitions for prostate and post-prostatectomy pre-treatment positioning by comparing this device to cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). METHODS: The differences between CBCT/CT and TP-US/TP-US registrations were analyzed on 427 and 453 sessions for 13 prostate and 14 post-prostatectomy patients, respectively. The inter-operator variability (IOV) of the registration process, and the impact and variability of the probe pressure were also evaluated. RESULTS: CBCT and TP-US shift agreements at ± 5 mm were 76.6%, 95.1%, 96.3% and 90.3%, 85.0%, 97.6% in anterior-posterior, superior-inferior and left-right directions, for prostate and post-prostatectomy patients, respectively. IOV values were similar between the 2 modalities. Displacements above 5 mm due to strong pressures were observed on both localizations, but such pressures were rarely reproduced during treatment courses. CONCLUSIONS: High concordance between CBCT/CT and TP-US/TP-US localization of prostates or prostatic beds was found in this study. TP-US based prepositioning is a feasible method to ensure accurate treatment delivery, and represents an attractive alternative to invasive and/or irradiating imaging modalities.

Development of 2D+T tracking algorithm in ultrasound images for radiotherapy.

The aim of this study is to develop and validate a deformable tracking algorithm for monitoring the motion of the target volume on 2D ultrasound (US) images during a radiotherapy fraction. The proposed method is applied on images acquired with a transperineal ultrasound (TP-US) probe on 31 treatment patient's sessions, treated with a prostate or after a surgery, called a prostatectomy. The developed algorithm is based on Speeded-Up Robust Features (SURF) to find and match the corresponding salient points in the reference and moving images, and Thin Plate Spline (TPS) to warp the image. The results are promising and show that the proposed algorithm performs well with either artificial transforms, or in comparison with a rigid intensity based algorithm used in clinic.

Ultrasound versus Cone-beam CT image-guided radiotherapy for prostate and post-prostatectomy pretreatment localization.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of an intra-modality trans-abdominal ultrasound (TA-US) device against soft-tissue based Cone-Beam Computed tomography (CBCT) registration for prostate and post-prostatectomy pre-treatment positioning. METHODS: The differences between CBCT and US shifts were calculated on 25 prostate cancer patients (cohort A) and 11 post-prostatectomy patients (cohort B), resulting in 284 and 106 paired shifts for cohorts A and B, respectively. As a second step, a corrective method was applied to the US registration results to decrease the systematic shifts observed between TA-US and CBCT results. This method consisted of subtracting the mean difference obtained between US and CBCT registration results during the first 3 sessions from the US registration results of the subsequent sessions. Inter-operator registration variability (IOV) was also investigated for both modalities. RESULTS: After initial review, about 20% of the US images were excluded because of insufficient quality. The average differences between US and CBCT were: 2.8 ± 4.1 mm, -0.9 ± 4.2 mm, 0.4 ± 3.4 mm for cohort A and 1.3 ± 5.0 mm, -2.3 ± 4.6 mm, 0.5 ± 2.9 mm for cohort B, in the anterior-posterior (AP), superior-inferior (SI) and lateral (LR) directions, respectively. After applying the corrective method, only the differences in the AP direction remained significant (p < 0.05). The IOV values were between 0.6-2.0 mm and 2.1-3.5 mm for the CBCT and TA-US modalities, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the obtained results and on the image quality, the TA-US imaging modality is not safely interchangeable with CBCT for pre-treatment repositioning. Treatment margins adaptation based on the correction of the systematic shifts should be considered.

Impact of probe pressure variability on prostate localization for ultrasound-based image-guided radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of transabdominal probe pressure on prostate positioning with an intramodality ultrasound (US) image-guided-radiotherapy system and to quantify pressure variability over the treatment course. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 8 prostate cancer patients (group A) and 17 healthy volunteers underwent 3 consecutive US images with increasing probe pressure levels, and 1 CT acquisition for the group A only. Prostate positions were compared after manual registration of the first US image contour projected on 2 others. Group A's pressure levels were quantified by measuring skin-to-skin distances between corresponding CT-US images. The same methodology was used on paired CT/CBCT-US images acquired during treatments of 18 prostate cancer patients to determine whether the different pressure levels applied to the group A were close to the clinical practices and to quantify pressure variability along the treatment course. RESULTS: 84% of 3D prostate displacements were above 2mm for at least one pressure level. Probe pressures deliberately applied were similar to the ones observed clinically. The latter drastically varied between sessions. CONCLUSION: Even with an intramodality system, probe pressure can impact prostate localization because of the pressure variability along the treatment course. Therefore, margins should be expanded from 0.5 to 1.2mm to ensure treatment accuracy.

Semiautomatic registration of 3D transabdominal ultrasound images for patient repositioning during postprostatectomy radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: The aim of the present work is to propose and evaluate registration algorithms of three-dimensional (3D) transabdominal (TA) ultrasound (US) images to setup postprostatectomy patients during radiation therapy. METHODS: Three registration methods have been developed and evaluated to register a reference 3D-TA-US image acquired during the planning CT session and a 3D-TA-US image acquired before each treatment session. The first method (method A) uses only gray value information, whereas the second one (method B) uses only gradient information. The third one (method C) combines both sets of information. All methods restrict the comparison to a region of interest computed from the dilated reference positioning volume drawn on the reference image and use mutual information as a similarity measure. The considered geometric transformations are translations and have been optimized by using the adaptive stochastic gradient descent algorithm. Validation has been carried out using manual registration by three operators of the same set of image pairs as the algorithms. Sixty-two treatment US images of seven patients irradiated after a prostatectomy have been registered to their corresponding reference US image. The reference registration has been defined as the average of the manual registration values. Registration error has been calculated by subtracting the reference registration from the algorithm result. For each session, the method has been considered a failure if the registration error was above both the interoperator variability of the session and a global threshold of 3.0 mm. RESULTS: All proposed registration algorithms have no systematic bias. Method B leads to the best results with mean errors of -0.6, 0.7, and -0.2 mm in left-right (LR), superior-inferior (SI), and anterior-posterior (AP) directions, respectively. With this method, the standard deviations of the mean error are of 1.7, 2.4, and 2.6 mm in LR, SI, and AP directions, respectively. The latter are inferior to the interoperator registration variabilities which are of 2.5, 2.5, and 3.5 mm in LR, SI, and AP directions, respectively. Failures occur in 5%, 18%, and 10% of cases in LR, SI, and AP directions, respectively. 69% of the sessions have no failure. CONCLUSIONS: Results of the best proposed registration algorithm of 3D-TA-US images for postprostatectomy treatment have no bias and are in the same variability range as manual registration. As the algorithm requires a short computation time, it could be used in clinical practice provided that a visual review is performed.