Collaborative implementation of stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy: A model for the safe implementation of complex radiotherapy techniques in Australia.

INTRODUCTION: Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for lung cancer is a modality of treatment that has improved outcomes for lung cancer patients. However, radiotherapy for lung cancer is underutilized and fewer than half of elderly patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receive active treatment. The purpose of this study is to report on a collaboration in implementing an NSCLC SABR (stereotactic ablative body radiation) program safely, efficiently, and uniformly across several centers, including regional sites. The first aim of this paper is to detail the collaboration and implementation that started in 2013 and is ongoing. The second aim of this paper is to document early toxicities and quality of life outcomes. METHOD: A tripartite approach was used to develop the protocol and networks required for the implementation of SABR across multiple sites in NSW. Departments starting the programmes were supported and physics credentialing with central site submission was required before commencing the treatment. Additional ongoing support was available via an email discussion group involving all members of the collaboration. RESULTS: Between July 22, 2013 and February 22, 2016, 41 patients were enrolled with 34 patients in active follow up. The toxicity profile so far is similar to those of published studies with no appreciable effect on quality of life outcomes. CONCLUSION: The collaboration formed an effective framework in facilitating the implementation of SABR across several sites in NSW and could be used as a model for the safe and uniform implementation of new technologies in Australia.

Dosimetric comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy and linear accelerator-based radiosurgery for the treatment of one to four brain metastases.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to compare and evaluate volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and linear accelerator-based radiosurgery (Linac RS) for the treatment of one to four brain metastases. METHODS: Radiotherapy plans for 10 patients with 1 to 4 brain metastases that were planned and treated using conventional Linac RS were replanned using a mono-isocentric VMAT technique using two to four arcs. The same doses, target volumes and organs at risk (OAR) were used in both plans. The plans were evaluated for target volume coverage, dose conformity, homogeneity and dose to OAR. RESULTS: For VMAT plans, 18/19 brain metastases met acceptable Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) radiosurgery dose coverage, homogeneity and conformity criteria. There was no observed difference between the mean homogeneity indices for VMAT and Linac RS plans. VMAT plans had a lower mean RTOG conformity index compared with the Linac RS plans (1.10 ± 0.06 versus 2.06 ± 1.02). For the OAR, there was no difference in maximal doses to the brain stem, optic chiasm or optic nerves. The volume of normal brain receiving 12 Gy was lower in the VMAT plans (13.3 cm(3) versus 23.1 cm(3) ) compared with the Linac RS plans. The mean total number of monitor units (MUs) was 31.3% less in the VMAT plans (5231.2 MU versus 3593.5 MU). CONCLUSIONS: Mono-isocentric VMAT plans using two to four arcs meet RTOG radiosurgery quality criteria in patients with one to four brain metastases, with an improvement in conformity and 12-Gy normal brain volume when compared with patients treated with Linac RS at our institution.