Cardiac Dose in Locally Advanced Lung Cancer: Results From a Statewide Consortium.

PURPOSE: The heart has been identified as a potential significant organ at risk in patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with radiation. Practice patterns and radiation dose delivered to the heart in routine practice in academic and community settings are unknown. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 2012 and 2017, 746 patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer were treated with radiation within the statewide Michigan Radiation Oncology Quality Consortium (MROQC). Cardiac radiation dose was characterized, including mean and those exceeding historical or recently proposed Radiation Therapy Oncology Group and NRG Oncology constraints. Sites were surveyed to determine dose constraints used in practice. Patient-, anatomic-, and treatment-related associations with cardiac dose were analyzed using multivariable regression analysis and inverse probability weighting. RESULTS: Thirty-eight percent of patients had a left-sided primary, and 80% had N2 or N3 disease. Median prescription was 60 Gy (interquartile range, 60-66 Gy). Twenty-two percent of patients were prescribed 60 Gy in 2012, which increased to 62% by 2017 (P < .001). Median mean heart dose was 12 Gy (interquartile range, 5-19 Gy). The volume receiving 30 Gy (V30 Gy) exceeded 50% in 5% of patients, and V40 Gy was >35% in 3% of cases. No heart dose constraint was uniformly applied. Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) usage increased from 33% in 2012 to 86% in 2017 (P < .001) and was significantly associated with more complex cases (larger planning target volume, higher stage, and preexisting cardiac disease). In multivariable regression analysis, IMRT was associated with a lower percent of the heart receiving V30 Gy (absolute reduction = 3.0%; 95% confidence interval, 0.5%-5.4%) and V50 Gy (absolute reduction = 3.6%; 95% confidence interval, 2.4%-4.8%) but not mean dose. In inverse probability weighting analysis, IMRT was associated with 29% to 48% relative reduction in percent of the heart receiving V40-V60 Gy without increasing lung or esophageal dose or compromising planning target volume coverage. CONCLUSIONS: Within MROQC, historical cardiac constraints were met in most cases, yet 1 in 4 patients received a mean heart dose exceeding 20 Gy. Future work is required to standardize heart dose constraints and to develop treatment approaches that allow for constraints to be met without compromising other planning goals.

A measurement technique to determine the calibration accuracy of an electromagnetic tracking system to radiation isocenter.

PURPOSE: To present and characterize a measurement technique to quantify the calibration accuracy of an electromagnetic tracking system to radiation isocenter. METHODS: This technique was developed as a quality assurance method for electromagnetic tracking systems used in a multi-institutional clinical hypofractionated prostate study. In this technique, the electromagnetic tracking system is calibrated to isocenter with the manufacturers recommended technique, using laser-based alignment. A test patient is created with a transponder at isocenter whose position is measured electromagnetically. Four portal images of the transponder are taken with collimator rotations of 45° 135°, 225°, and 315°, at each of four gantry angles (0°, 90°, 180°, 270°) using a 3×6 cm2 radiation field. In each image, the center of the copper-wrapped iron core of the transponder is determined. All measurements are made relative to this transponder position to remove gantry and imager sag effects. For each of the 16 images, the 50% collimation edges are identified and used to find a ray representing the rotational axis of each collimation edge. The 16 collimator rotation rays from four gantry angles pass through and bound the radiation isocenter volume. The center of the bounded region, relative to the transponder, is calculated and then transformed to tracking system coordinates using the transponder position, allowing the tracking system's calibration offset from radiation isocenter to be found. All image analysis and calculations are automated with inhouse software for user-independent accuracy. Three different tracking systems at two different sites were evaluated for this study. RESULTS: The magnitude of the calibration offset was always less than the manufacturer's stated accuracy of 0.2 cm using their standard clinical calibration procedure, and ranged from 0.014 to 0.175 cm. On three systems in clinical use, the magnitude of the offset was found to be 0.053±0.036, 0.121±0.023, and 0.093±0.013 cm. CONCLUSIONS: The method presented here provides an independent technique to verify the calibration of an electromagnetic tracking system to radiation isocenter. The calibration accuracy of the system was better than the 0.2 cm accuracy stated by the manufacturer. However, it should not be assumed to be zero, especially for stereotactic radiation therapy treatments where planning target volume margins are very small.