Using feasibility dose-volume histograms to reduce intercampus plan quality variability for head-and-neck cancer.

The purpose of this work is to objectively assess variability of intercampus plan quality for head-and-neck (HN) cancer and to test utility of a priori feasibility dose-volume histograms (FDVHs) as planning dose goals. In this study, 109 plans treated from 2017 to 2019 were selected, with 52 from the main campus and 57 from various regional centers. For each patient, the planning computed tomography images and contours were imported into a commercial program to generate FDVHs with a feasibility value (f-value) ranging from 0.0 to 0.5. For 10 selected organs-at-risk (OARs), we used the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) to quantify the overlaps between FDVH and clinically achieved DVH of each OAR and determined the f-value associated with the maximum DSC (labeled as f-max). Subsequently, 10 HN plans from the regional centers were replanned with planning dose goals guided by FDVHs. The clinical and feasibility-guided auto-planning (FgAP) plans were evaluated using our institutional criteria. Among plans from the main campus and regional centers, the median f-max values were statistically significantly different (p < 0.05) for all OARs except for the left parotid (p = 0.622), oral cavity (p = 0.057), and mandible (p = 0.237). For the 10 FgAP plans, the median values of f-max were 0.21, compared to 0.37 from the clinical plans. With comparable dose coverage to the tumor volumes, the significant differences (p < 0.05) in the median f-max and corresponding dose reduction (shown in parenthesis) for the spinal cord, larynx, supraglottis, trachea, and esophagus were 0.27 (8.5 Gy), 0.3 (7.6 Gy), 0.19 (5.9 Gy), 0.19 (8.9 Gy), and 0.12 (4.0 Gy), respectively. In conclusion, the FDVH prediction is an objective quality assurance tool to evaluate the intercampus plan variability. This tool can also provide guideline in planning dose goals to further improve plan quality.

Using a daily monitoring system to reduce treatment position override rates in external beam radiation therapy.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To report our 7-year experience with a daily monitoring system to significantly reduce couch position overrides and errors in patient treatment positioning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Treatment couch position override data were extracted from a radiation oncology-specific electronic medical record system from 2012 to 2018. During this period, we took several actions to reduce couch position overrides, including reducing the number of tolerance tables from 18 to 6, tightening tolerance limits, enforcing time outs, documenting reasons for overrides, and timely reviewing of overrides made from previous treatment day. The tolerance tables included treatment categories for head and neck (HN) (with/without cone beam CT [CBCT]), body (with/without CBCT), stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), and clinical setup for electron beams. For the same time period, we also reported treatment positioning-related incidents that were recorded in our departmental incident report system. To verify our tolerance limits, we further examined couch shifts after daily kilovoltage CBCT (kV-CBCT) for the patients treated from 2018 to 2021. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2018, the override rate decreased from 11.2% to 1.6%/year, whereas the number of fractions treated in the department increased by 23%. The annual patient positioning error rate was also reduced from 0.019% in 2012, to 0.004% in 2017 and 0% in 2018. For patients treated under daily kV-CBCT guidance from 2018 to 2021, the applied couch shifts after imaging registration that exceeded the tolerance limits were low, <1% for HN, <1.2% for body, and <2.6% for SBRT. CONCLUSIONS: The daily monitoring system, which enables a timely review of overrides, significantly reduced the number of treatment couch position overrides and ultimately resulted in a decrease in treatment positioning errors. For patients treated with daily kV-CBCT guidance, couch position shifts after CBCT image guidance demonstrated a low rate of exceeding the set tolerance.

Initial outcomes with image-guided partial breast irradiation delivered with intensity-modulated radiation therapy.

Patients were treated at a single institution to a dose of 30 Gy in five fractions delivered every other day using image-guided intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) partial breast irradiation. A total of 34 patients were treated with a median follow-up of 4.6 months. The rate of acute Grade 1 dermatitis was 23.5% (n = 8), and Grade 1 fatigue was 17.6% (n = 6), with no Grade 2 or higher acute toxicities. The rate of chronic Grade 1 dermatitis was 25.0% (n = 6), Grade 1 fat necrosis 4.2% (n=1), with no patients demonstrating other chronic toxicities. Image-guided APBI delivered with IMRT is associated with low rates of acute and chronic toxicity though additional follow-up is warranted.

Combining automatic plan integrity check (APIC) with standard plan document and checklist method to reduce errors in treatment planning.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To report our experience of combining three approaches of an automatic plan integrity check (APIC), a standard plan documentation, and checklist methods to minimize errors in the treatment planning process. MATERIALS/METHODS: We developed APIC program and standardized plan documentation via scripting in the treatment planning system, with an enforce function of APIC usage. We used a checklist method to check for communication errors in patient charts (referred to as chart errors). Any errors in the plans and charts (referred to as the planning errors) discovered during the initial chart check by the therapists were reported to our institutional Workflow Enhancement (WE) system. Clinical Implementation of these three methods is a progressive process while the APIC was the major progress among the three methods. Thus, we chose to compared the total number of planning errors before (including data from 2013 to 2014) and after (including data from 2015 to 2018) APIC implementation. We assigned the severity of these errors into five categories: serious (S), near miss with safety net (NM), clinical interruption (CLI), minor impediment (MI), and bookkeeping (BK). The Mann-Whitney U test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: A total of 253 planning error forms, containing 272 errors, were submitted during the study period, representing an error rate of 3.8%, 3.1%, 2.1%, 0.8%, 1.9% and 1.3% of total number of plans in these years respectively. A marked reduction of planning error rate in the S and NM categories was statistically significant (P < 0.01): from 0.6% before APIC to 0.1% after APIC. The error rate for all categories was also significantly reduced (P < 0.01), from 3.4% before APIC and 1.5% per plan after APIC. CONCLUSION: With three combined methods, we reduced both the number and the severity of errors significantly in the process of treatment planning.

Technical Note: A step-by-step guide to Temporally Feathered Radiation Therapy planning for head and neck cancer.

PURPOSE: Prior in silico simulations propose that Temporally Feathered Radiation Therapy (TFRT) may reduce toxicity related to head and neck radiation therapy. In this study we demonstrate a step-by-step guide to TFRT planning with modern treatment planning systems. METHODS: One patient with oropharyngeal cancer planned for definitive radiation therapy using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) techniques was replanned using the TFRT technique. Five organs at risk (OAR) were identified to be feathered. A "base plan" was first created based on desired planning target volumes (PTV) coverage, plan conformality, and OAR constraints. The base plan was then re-optimized by modifying planning objectives, to generate five subplans. All beams from each subplan were imported onto one trial to create the composite TFRT plan. The composite TFRT plan was directly compared with the non-TFRT IMRT plan. During plan assessment, the composite TFRT was first evaluated followed by each subplan to meet preset compliance criteria. RESULTS: The following organs were feathered: oral cavity, right submandibular gland, left submandibular gland, supraglottis, and OAR Pharynx. Prescription dose PTV coverage (>95%) was met in each subplan and the composite TFRT plan. Expected small variations in dose were observed among the plans. The percent variation between the high fractional dose and average low fractional dose was 29%, 28%, 24%, 19%, and 10% for the oral cavity, right submandibular, left submandibular, supraglottis, and OAR pharynx nonoverlapping with the PTV. CONCLUSIONS: Temporally Feathered Radiation Therapy planning is possible with modern treatment planning systems. Modest dosimetric changes are observed with TFRT planning compared with non-TFRT IMRT planning. We await the results of the current prospective trial to seeking to demonstrate the feasibility of TFRT in the modern clinical workflow (NCT03768856). Further studies will be required to demonstrate the potential benefit of TFRT over non-TFRT IMRT Planning.

Evaluation of auto-planning in IMRT and VMAT for head and neck cancer.

PURPOSE: The purposes of this work are to (a) investigate whether the use of auto-planning and multiple iterations improves quality of head and neck (HN) radiotherapy plans; (b) determine whether delivery methods such as step-and-shoot (SS) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) impact plan quality; (c) report on the observations of plan quality predictions of a commercial feasibility tool. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty HN cases were retrospectively selected from our clinical database for this study. The first ten plans were used to test setting up planning goals and other optimization parameters in the auto-planning module. Subsequently, the other ten plans were replanned with auto-planning using step-and-shoot (AP-SS) and VMAT (AP-VMAT) delivery methods. Dosimetric endpoints were compared between the clinical plans and the corresponding AP-SS and AP-VMAT plans. Finally, predicted dosimetric endpoints from a commercial program were assessed. RESULTS: All AP-SS and AP-VMAT plans met the clinical dose constraints. With auto-planning, the dose coverage of the low dose planning target volume (PTV) was improved while the dose coverage of the high dose PTV was maintained. Compared to the clinical plans, the doses to critical organs, such as the brainstem, parotid, larynx, esophagus, and oral cavity were significantly reduced in the AP-VMAT (P < 0.05); the AP-SS plans had similar homogeneity indices (HI) and conformality indices (CI) and the AP-VMAT plans had comparable HI and improved CI. Good agreement in dosimetric endpoints between predictions and AP-VMAT plans were observed in five of seven critical organs. CONCLUSION: With improved planning quality and efficiency, auto-planning module is an effective tool to enable planners to generate HN IMRT plans that are meeting institution specific planning protocols. DVH prediction is feasible in improving workflow and plan quality.

Single-isocenter hybrid IMRT plans versus two-isocenter conventional plans and impact of intrafraction motion for the treatment of breast cancer with supraclavicular lymph nodes involvement.

The purpose of this study was to compare the single-isocenter, four-field hybrid IMRT with the two-isocenter techniques to treat the whole breast and supraclavicular fields and to investigate the intrafraction motions in both techniques in the superior direction. Fifteen breast cancer patients who underwent lumpectomy and adjuvant radiation to the whole breast and supraclavicular (SCV) fossa at our institution were selected for this study. Two planning techniques were compared for the treatment of the breast and SCV lymph nodes. The patients were divided into three subgroups according to the whole breast volume. For the two-isocenter technique, conventional wedged or field-within-a-field tangents (FIF) were used to match with the same anterior field for the SCV region. For the single-isocenter technique, four-field hybrid IMRT was used for the tangent fields matched with a half blocked anterior field for the SCV region. To simulate the intrafraction uncertainties in the longitudinal direction for both techniques, the treatment isocenters were shifted by 1 mm and 2 mm in the superior direction. The average breast clinical tumor volume (CTV) receiving 100% (V(100%)) of the prescription dose (50 Gy) was 99.3% ± 0.5% and 96.4% ± 1.2% for the for two-isocenter and single-isocenter plans (р < 0.05), respectively. The breast CTV receiving 95% of the prescription dose (V(95%)) was close to 100% in both techniques. The average breast CTV receiving 105% (V(105%)) of the prescription dose was 32.4% ± 19.3% and 23.8% ± 13.3% (р = 0.08). The percentage volume of the breast CTV receiving 110% of the dose was 0.4% ± 1.2% in the two-isocentric technique vs. 0.1% ± 0.2% in the single-isocentric technique. The average uniformity index was 0.91 ± 0.02 vs. 0.91 ± 0.01 in both techniques (p = 0.04), but had no clinical impact. The percentage volume of the contralateral breast receiving a dose of 1 Gy was less than 2.3% in small breast patients and insignificant for medium and large breast sizes. The percentage of the total lung volume receiving > 20 Gy (V(20Gy)) and the heart receiving > 30 Gy (V(30Gy)) were 13.6% vs. 14.3% (р = 0.03) and 1.25% vs. 1.2% (р = 0.62), respectively. Shifting the treatment isocenter by 1 mm and 2 mm superiorly showed that the average maximum dose to 1 cc of the breast volume was 55.5 ± 1.8 Gy and 58.6 ± 4.3 Gy in the two-isocentric technique vs. 56.4 ± 2.1 Gy and 59.1 ± 5.1 Gy in the single-isocentric technique (р = 0.46, 0.87), respectively. The single-isocenter technique using four-field hybrid IMRT approach resulted in comparable plan quality as the two-isocentric technique. The single-isocenter technique is more sensitive to intra-fraction motion in the superior direction compared to the two-isocentric technique. The advantages of the single-isocenter include elimination of isocentric errors due to couch and collimator rotations and reduction in treatment time. This study supports consideration of a single-isocenter four-field hybrid IMRT technique for patients undergoing breast and supraclavicular nodal irradiation.

Performance of a Chest Radiograph AI Diagnostic Tool for COVID-19: A Prospective Observational Study.

Purpose: To conduct a prospective observational study across 12 U.S. hospitals to evaluate real-time performance of an interpretable artificial intelligence (AI) model to detect COVID-19 on chest radiographs. Materials and Methods: A total of 95 363 chest radiographs were included in model training, external validation, and real-time validation. The model was deployed as a clinical decision support system, and performance was prospectively evaluated. There were 5335 total real-time predictions and a COVID-19 prevalence of 4.8% (258 of 5335). Model performance was assessed with use of receiver operating characteristic analysis, precision-recall curves, and F1 score. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the association of race and sex with AI model diagnostic accuracy. To compare model accuracy with the performance of board-certified radiologists, a third dataset of 1638 images was read independently by two radiologists. Results: Participants positive for COVID-19 had higher COVID-19 diagnostic scores than participants negative for COVID-19 (median, 0.1 [IQR, 0.0-0.8] vs 0.0 [IQR, 0.0-0.1], respectively; P < .001). Real-time model performance was unchanged over 19 weeks of implementation (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.70; 95% CI: 0.66, 0.73). Model sensitivity was higher in men than women (P = .01), whereas model specificity was higher in women (P = .001). Sensitivity was higher for Asian (P = .002) and Black (P = .046) participants compared with White participants. The COVID-19 AI diagnostic system had worse accuracy (63.5% correct) compared with radiologist predictions (radiologist 1 = 67.8% correct, radiologist 2 = 68.6% correct; McNemar P < .001 for both). Conclusion: AI-based tools have not yet reached full diagnostic potential for COVID-19 and underperform compared with radiologist prediction.Keywords: Diagnosis, Classification, Application Domain, Infection, Lung Supplemental material is available for this article.. © RSNA, 2022.

In vivo assessment of the safety of standard fractionation Temporally Feathered Radiation Therapy (TFRT) for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: An R-IDEAL Stage 1/2a first-in-humans/feasibility demonstration of new technology implementation.

INTRODUCTION: Prior in silico simulations of studies of Temporally Feathered Radiation Therapy (TFRT) have demonstrated potential reduction in normal tissue toxicity. This R-IDEAL Stage 1/2A study seeks to demonstrate the first-in-human implementation of TFRT in treating patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with HNSCC treated with definitive radiation therapy were eligible (70 Gy in 35 fractions) were eligible. The primary endpoint was feasibility of TFRT planning as defined by radiation start within 15 business days of CT simulation. Secondary endpoints included estimates of acute grade 3-5 toxicity. RESULTS: The study met its accrual goal of 5 patients. TFRT plans were generated in four of the five patients within 15 business days of CT simulation, therefore meeting the primary endpoint. One patient was not treated with TFRT at the physician's discretion, though the TFRT plan had been generated within sufficient time from the CT simulation. For patients who received TFRT, the median time from CT simulation to radiation start was 10 business days (range 8-15). The average time required for radiation planning was 6 business days. In all patients receiving TFRT, each subplan and every daily fraction was delivered in the correct sequence without error. The OARs feathered included: oral cavity, each submandibular gland, each parotid gland, supraglottis, and posterior pharyngeal wall (OAR pharynx). Prescription dose PTV coverage (>95%) was ensured in each TFRT subplan and the composite TFRT plan. One of five patients developed an acute grade 3 toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the first-in-human implementation of TFRT (R-IDEAL Stage 1), proving its feasibility in the modern clinical workflow. Additionally, assessments of acute toxicities and dosimetric comparisons to a standard radiotherapy plan were described (R-IDEAL Stage 2a).

A Prospective Observational Study to Investigate Performance of a Chest X-ray Artificial Intelligence Diagnostic Support Tool Across 12 U.S. Hospitals.

Importance: An artificial intelligence (AI)-based model to predict COVID-19 likelihood from chest x-ray (CXR) findings can serve as an important adjunct to accelerate immediate clinical decision making and improve clinical decision making. Despite significant efforts, many limitations and biases exist in previously developed AI diagnostic models for COVID-19. Utilizing a large set of local and international CXR images, we developed an AI model with high performance on temporal and external validation. Objective: Investigate real-time performance of an AI-enabled COVID-19 diagnostic support system across a 12-hospital system. Design: Prospective observational study. Setting: Labeled frontal CXR images (samples of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19) from the M Health Fairview (Minnesota, USA), Valencian Region Medical ImageBank (Spain), MIMIC-CXR, Open-I 2013 Chest X-ray Collection, GitHub COVID-19 Image Data Collection (International), Indiana University (Indiana, USA), and Emory University (Georgia, USA). Participants: Internal (training, temporal, and real-time validation): 51,592 CXRs; Public: 27,424 CXRs; External (Indiana University): 10,002 CXRs; External (Emory University): 2002 CXRs. Main Outcome and Measure: Model performance assessed via receiver operating characteristic (ROC), Precision-Recall curves, and F1 score. Results: Patients that were COVID-19 positive had significantly higher COVID-19 Diagnostic Scores (median .1 [IQR: 0.0-0.8] vs median 0.0 [IQR: 0.0-0.1], p < 0.001) than patients that were COVID-19 negative. Pre-implementation the AI-model performed well on temporal validation (AUROC 0.8) and external validation (AUROC 0.76 at Indiana U, AUROC 0.72 at Emory U). The model was noted to have unrealistic performance (AUROC > 0.95) using publicly available databases. Real-time model performance was unchanged over 19 weeks of implementation (AUROC 0.70). On subgroup analysis, the model had improved discrimination for patients with "severe" as compared to "mild or moderate" disease, p < 0.001. Model performance was highest in Asians and lowest in whites and similar between males and females. Conclusions and Relevance: AI-based diagnostic tools may serve as an adjunct, but not replacement, for clinical decision support of COVID-19 diagnosis, which largely hinges on exposure history, signs, and symptoms. While AI-based tools have not yet reached full diagnostic potential in COVID-19, they may still offer valuable information to clinicians taken into consideration along with clinical signs and symptoms.

Tumor Volume Useful Beyond Classic Criteria in Selecting Larynx Cancers For Preservation Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between tumor volume and locoregional failure (LRF) after concurrent chemoradiation (CCRT) for locally advanced larynx cancer (LC). METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study from 2009 to 2014 identified from an institutional review board-approved registry. Fifty-nine of 68 patients with locally advanced larynx cancer treated with definitive CCRT who had available imaging for review were identified. The main endpoint to be assessed was the association between gross tumor volumes (GTV; T = total, P = primary, N = nodal) and LRF. Receiver operative characteristic (ROC) curves were used to investigate diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: Twenty LRFs were observed, resulting in a 2-year LRF rate of 39% (95% CI, 23-52%). On UVA, the GTV-T (P = .01), GTV-P (P = .05), and GTV-N (P = .04) were statistically significant predictors of LRF. Furthermore, age, smoking status, N-stage, larynx subsite, and tracheostomy/feeding tube dependence were potentially associated with LRF (P < .3), whereas T-stage (T3-4 vs. T2) was not (HR 1.05, 95% CI, 0.38-2.91, P = .92). In the multivariable model, GTV-P (HR 1.022, 95% CI, 0.999-1.046, P = .07) and GTV-N (HR 1.053, 95% CI, 1.0004-1.108, P = .05) were the two most impactful covariates on the model's R2 . ROC analysis suggested an optimal cut point of 12 cc in the GTV-T. The 2-year LRF for GTV-T > 12 cc was 64.2% and ≤ 12 cc was 16.4%, P = .006. CONCLUSION: GTV is associated with LRF after definitive CCRT for LC. Patients with bulky primary and/or nodal tumors may be better served with upfront surgical resection regardless of T-stage. Further investigation into the safety of larynx preservation for low-volume T4 tumors can be considered. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 130:2372-2377, 2020.

Correlation between plan quality improvements and reduced acute dysphagia and xerostomia in the definitive treatment of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate plan quality using volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy (SS-IMRT) techniques and for patients treated for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC). METHODS: Treatment plans for patients treated definitively for stages I-IVb, OPSCC between December 2009 and August 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Dosimetric endpoints of involved organs-at-risk (OARs) were retrieved from clinical plans. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events scores of acute toxicities were compared. RESULTS: Two-hundred twenty-two patients were identified with 134 and 88 receiving SS-IMRT and VMAT with median follow-up time of 23.0 and 7.9 months, respectively. The dosimetric endpoints of the OARs were significantly improved in VMAT cohort, which translated into significantly lower rates of grade 2 or higher acute dysphagia and xerostomia. CONCLUSION: Improvements in stages I-IVb, oropharyngeal cancer plan quality are associated with reduced grade ≥ 2 acute dysphagia and xerostomia.

3D treatment planning system-Pinnacle system.

The treatment planning system is key for the success of external beam radiotherapy, directly impacting the quality of treatment plans and accuracy of dose calculation in the plans. In this article, we provided an overview of the Pinnacle treatment planning system for external beam planning, including 3-dimensional (3D) conformal plans, step-shoot intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans, and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans. We discussed dose calculation algorithm and other utilities, including image fusion, plan documentation, and adaptive planning. Based on our many years of clinical experience with the system, the aim of this article is to provide readers with a summary of this particular planning system.

Clinical and dosimetric implications of intensity-modulated radiotherapy for early-stage glottic carcinoma.

Conventional parallel-opposed radiotherapy (PORT) is the established standard technique for early-stage glottic carcinoma. However, case reports have reported the utility of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with or without image guidance (image-guided radiotherapy, IGRT) in select patients. The proposed advantages of IMRT/VMAT include sparing of the carotid artery, thyroid gland, and the remaining functional larynx, although these benefits remain unclear. The following case study presents a patient with multiple vascular comorbidities treated with VMAT for early-stage glottic carcinoma. A detailed explanation of the corresponding treatment details, dose-volume histogram (DVH) analysis, and a review of the relevant literature are provided. Conventional PORT remains the standard of care for early-stage glottic carcinoma. IMRT or VMAT may be beneficial for select patients, although great care is necessary to avoid a geographical miss. Clinical data supporting the benefit of CRT are lacking. Therefore, these techniques should be used with caution and only in selected patients.