NRG Oncology Assessment of Artificial Intelligence Deep Learning-Based Auto-segmentation for Radiation Therapy: Current Developments, Clinical Considerations, and Future Directions.

Deep learning neural networks (DLNN) in Artificial intelligence (AI) have been extensively explored for automatic segmentation in radiotherapy (RT). In contrast to traditional model-based methods, data-driven AI-based models for auto-segmentation have shown high accuracy in early studies in research settings and controlled environment (single institution). Vendor-provided commercial AI models are made available as part of the integrated treatment planning system (TPS) or as a stand-alone tool that provides streamlined workflow interacting with the main TPS. These commercial tools have drawn clinics' attention thanks to their significant benefit in reducing the workload from manual contouring and shortening the duration of treatment planning. However, challenges occur when applying these commercial AI-based segmentation models to diverse clinical scenarios, particularly in uncontrolled environments. Contouring nomenclature and guideline standardization has been the main task undertaken by the NRG Oncology. AI auto-segmentation holds the potential clinical trial participants to reduce interobserver variations, nomenclature non-compliance, and contouring guideline deviations. Meanwhile, trial reviewers could use AI tools to verify contour accuracy and compliance of those submitted datasets. In recognizing the growing clinical utilization and potential of these commercial AI auto-segmentation tools, NRG Oncology has formed a working group to evaluate the clinical utilization and potential of commercial AI auto-segmentation tools. The group will assess in-house and commercially available AI models, evaluation metrics, clinical challenges, and limitations, as well as future developments in addressing these challenges. General recommendations are made in terms of the implementation of these commercial AI models, as well as precautions in recognizing the challenges and limitations.

Intra-operative Radiation Therapy for Colorectal or Anal Cancer at Risk for Margin-Positive Resection: Initial Results of a Single-Institution Registry.

PURPOSE: Pelvic recurrence of rectal or anal cancers is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. We report our initial experience with an aggressive intra-operative radiotherapy (IORT) program. METHODS: Patients with locally advanced or recurrent rectal or anal cancers considered to have a high likelihood of R1 or R2 resection after multi-disciplinary review underwent surgical excision and IORT using a high-dose-rate afterloader (Ir-192) and HAM applicator. Endpoints included local or distant recurrence, and acute and late toxicity graded using the American College of Surgeons (ACS) NSQIP and the LENT-SOMA scale. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients, largely with prior history of both pelvic external beam radiotherapy (EBRT, median 50.4 Gy) and surgical resection, underwent excision with IORT (median dose 12.5 Gy, range 10-15). Median follow-up was 20 months. Twelve (57%) patients had failure at the IORT site. Freedom from failure (FFF) within the IORT field was associated with resection status (FFF at 1 year 75% for R0 vs 15% for R1/2, p = 0.0065) but not re-irradiation EBRT or IORT dose (p > 0.05). Twelve, 5, and 13 patients experienced local, regional, and distant failure, respectively; 3 (14%) patients were disease-free at last follow-up. The most frequent acute toxicity was sepsis/abscess (24%). One patient (5%) required a ureteral stent; no patients developed neuropathy attributable to IORT. CONCLUSIONS: In patients treated with excision and IORT for locally recurrent cancer, R0 resection is a critical determinant of local control. For patients with R1/2 resection, poor disease-free outcomes warrant consideration of a different treatment strategy.

AAPM task group report 302: Surface-guided radiotherapy.

The clinical use of surface imaging has increased dramatically, with demonstrated utility for initial patient positioning, real-time motion monitoring, and beam gating in a variety of anatomical sites. The Therapy Physics Subcommittee and the Imaging for Treatment Verification Working Group of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine commissioned Task Group 302 to review the current clinical uses of surface imaging and emerging clinical applications. The specific charge of this task group was to provide technical guidelines for clinical indications of use for general positioning, breast deep-inspiration breath hold treatment, and frameless stereotactic radiosurgery. Additionally, the task group was charged with providing commissioning and on-going quality assurance (QA) requirements for surface-guided radiation therapy (SGRT) as part of a comprehensive QA program including risk assessment. Workflow considerations for other anatomic sites and for computed tomography simulation, including motion management, are also discussed. Finally, developing clinical applications, such as stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) or proton radiotherapy, are presented. The recommendations made in this report, which are summarized at the end of the report, are applicable to all video-based SGRT systems available at the time of writing.

A Phase 1 Trial of Concurrent or Sequential Ipilimumab, Nivolumab, and Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy in Patients With Stage IV NSCLC Study.

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have evaluated stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in oligometastatic patients with NSCLC, including multimodality treatment with anti-programmed cell death protein-1 monotherapy. Questions remain regarding the timing of SBRT and immunotherapy, safety with dual checkpoint blockade, and the utility in widely metastatic patients. This randomized phase 1 trial combined nivolumab and ipilimumab with sequential or concurrent multisite SBRT in patients with stage IV NSCLC to evaluate safety and obtain preliminary activity data. METHODS: Treatment-naive patients with metastatic NSCLC were randomized to concurrent (SBRT with immunotherapy) or sequential (SBRT followed by immunotherapy) treatment. A maximum of four treatment fields received SBRT. Nivolumab and ipilimumab were continued until clinical progression, development of toxicity, or after 2 years. Dose-limiting toxicity was defined as greater than or equal to grade 3 toxicity to the relevant organ system attributed to SBRT and immunotherapy occuring within 3 months. RESULTS: A total of 37 patients were assessable. No dose-limiting toxicity occurred in the concurrent cohort (n = 18). The sequential cohort required a dose reduction in the central lung group owing to two grade 4 pneumonitis events (2 of 19). Overall best response was as follows: 5.4% (2 of 37) complete response, 40.5% (15 of 37) partial response, 16.2% (6 of 37) stable disease, and 37.8% (14 of 37) progressive disease. Median progression-free survival was 5.8 months (95% confidence interval: 3.6-11.4 mo), with median follow-up of 17.0 months. Median overall survival was not reached. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent nivolumab, ipilimumab, and SBRT were not more toxic than sequential therapy, and multisite SBRT was well tolerated in widely metastatic patients. Multimodality therapy resulted in durable metastasis control and encouraging early overall survival.

Evaluation of Dose Distribution to Organs-at-Risk in a Prospective Phase 1 Trial of Pembrolizumab and Multisite Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT).

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to characterize the radiation doses to organs-at-risk (OAR) in the phase I trial (NCT02608385) that established safety/efficacy of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) using NRG-BR001 dose constraints combined with programmed cell death protein 1 blockade for metastatic disease. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between January 2016 and May 2018, 73 patients with advanced solid tumors were treated with SBRT followed by pembrolizumab. Tumor volumes (gross tumor volume/internal tumor volume) were delineated for each metastasis, with planning target volume contraction to limit OAR dose per protocol (n = 54) or when gross tumor volume/internal tumor volume > 65 cm3 (n = 19). For 20 OAR, doses were compared with NRG-BR001 constraints. Protocol constraints were considered challenged when the minimum of the highest dose received by ≥6 patients without dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) (Dmax6th) was ≥70% of the protocol constraint. RESULTS: A total of 151 metastases were irradiated including 32 peripheral lung, 23 central lung, 13 mediastinal/cervical, 24 liver, 28 abdominal-pelvic, 16 osseous, and 15 spinal metastases. A median of 2 metastases (range, 2-4) with mean volumes of 33.5 cm3 (range, 0.4-391 cm3) were treated using average planning target volumes of 50.7 cm3 (range, 3.2-161 cm3). At least 1 dose constraint from NRG-BR001 was exceeded in 38 of 73 (52%) patients. OAR constraints were challenged in 10 serial organs (gastrointestinal, cardio-pulmonary, musculoskeletal, and nervous systems) and 1 parallel OAR (lung). Grade 3 DLTs occurred in 6 patients, including pneumonitis (n = 3), colitis (n = 2), and hepatic failure (n = 1). In 4 patients, the toxicity could be directly attributed to the planned dose to OAR (ie, pneumonitis due to high lung dose or colitis due to high bowel dose). CONCLUSIONS: Multisite SBRT in combination with programmed cell death protein 1 blockade was safely tolerated when treating critical central, abdominal-pelvic, and peripheral OAR nearing NRG-BR001 constraints with clinically acceptable toxicity in the corresponding organ systems. The observed relationship between dose and DLTs in 4 of 6 patients indicates that NRG-BR001 dose constraints should be respected in subsequent trials to maintain clinical safety.

The role of surface-guided radiation therapy for improving patient safety.

Emerging data indicates SGRT could improve safety and quality by preventing errors in its capacity as an independent system in the treatment room. The aim of this work is to investigate the utility of SGRT in the context of safety and quality. Three incident learning systems (ILS) were reviewed to categorize and quantify errors that could have been prevented with SGRT: SAFRON (International Atomic Energy Agency), UW-ILS (University of Washington) and AvIC (Skåne University Hospital). A total of 849/9737 events occurred during the pre-treatment review/verification and treatment stages. Of these, 179 (21%) events were predicted to have been preventable with SGRT. The most common preventable events were wrong isocentre (43%) and incorrect accessories (34%), which appeared at comparable rates among SAFRON and UW-ILS. The proportion of events due to wrong accessories was much smaller in the AvIC ILS, which may be attributable to the mandatory use of SGRT in Sweden. Several case scenarios are presented to demonstrate that SGRT operates as a valuable complement to other quality-improvement tools routinely used in radiotherapy. Cases are noted in which SGRT itself caused incidents. These were mostly related to workflow issues and were of low severity. Severity data indicated that events with the potential to be mitigated by SGRT were of higher severity for all categories except wrong accessories. Improved vendor integration of SGRT systems within the overall workflow could further enhance its clinical utility. SGRT is a valuable tool with the potential to increase patient safety and treatment quality in radiotherapy.

AAPM medical physics practice guideline 3.b.: Levels of supervision for medical physicists in clinical training.

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8,000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States. The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for the purpose of revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner. Each medical physics practice guideline represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice guidelines and technical standards by those entities not providing these services is not authorized. The following terms are used in the AAPM practice guidelines: (1) Must and Must Not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline. (2) Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances.

Evaluation of Safety of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for the Treatment of Patients With Multiple Metastases: Findings From the NRG-BR001 Phase 1 Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for oligometastases is hypothesized to improve survival and is increasingly used. Little evidence supports its safe use to treat patients with multiple metastases. OBJECTIVE: To establish safety of SBRT dose schedules in patients with 3 to 4 metastases or 2 metastases in close proximity to each other. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This phase 1 trial opened on August 4, 2014, and closed to accrual on March 20, 2018. Metastases to 7 anatomic locations were included: bone/osseous (BO), spinal/paraspinal (SP), peripheral lung (PL), central lung (CL), abdominal-pelvic (AP), mediastinal/cervical lymph node (MC), and liver (L). Six patients could be enrolled per anatomic site. The setting was a consortium of North American academic and community practice cancer centers participating in NRG Oncology trials. Patients with breast, prostate, or non-small cell lung cancer with 3 to 4 metastases or 2 metastases in close proximity (≤5 cm) amenable to SBRT were eligible for this phase 1 study. Statistical analyses were performed from December 31, 2017, to September 19, 2019. INTERVENTIONS: The starting dose was 50 Gy in 5 fractions (CL, MC), 45 Gy in 3 fractions (PL, AP, L), and 30 Gy in 3 fractions (BO, SP). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) defined by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0, as specific adverse events (AEs) of grades 3 to 5 (definite or probable per the protocol DLT definition) related to SBRT within 180 days of treatment. Dose levels were considered safe if DLTs were observed in no more than 1 of 6 patients per location; otherwise, the dose at that location would be de-escalated. RESULTS: A total of 42 patients enrolled, 39 were eligible, and 35 (mean [SD] age, 63.1 [14.2] years; 20 men [57.1%]; 30 White patients [85.7%]) were evaluable for DLT. Twelve patients (34.3%) had breast cancer, 10 (28.6%) had non-small cell lung cancer, and 13 (37.1%) had prostate cancer; there was a median of 3 metastases treated per patient. Median survival was not reached. No protocol-defined DLTs were observed. When examining all AEs, 8 instances of grade 3 AEs, most likely related to protocol therapy, occurred approximately 125 to 556 days from SBRT initiation in 7 patients. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This phase 1 trial demonstrated the safety of SBRT for patients with 3 to 4 metastases or 2 metastases in close proximity. There were no treatment-related deaths. Late grade 3 AEs demonstrate the need for extended follow-up in long-surviving patients with oligometastatic disease. Treatment with SBRT for multiple metastases has been expanded into multiple ongoing randomized phase 2/3 National Cancer Institute-sponsored trials (NRG-BR002, NRG-LU002). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02206334.

A study of the dosimetric impact of daily setup variations measured with cone-beam CT on three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer delivered in the prone position.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the dosimetric impact of daily positioning variations measured with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) on whole-breast radiotherapy patients treated in the prone position. METHODS: Daily CBCT was prospectively acquired for 30 consecutive patients positioned prone. Treatment for early-stage (≤II) breast cancer was prescribed with standard dose (50 Gy/25 fractions) or hypofractionation (42.56 Gy/16 fractions) for 13 and 17 patients, respectively. Systematic and random errors were calculated from the translational CBCT shifts and used to determine population-based setup margins. Mean translations (±one standard deviation) for each patient were used to simulate the dosimetric impact on targets (PTV_eval and lumpectomy cavity), heart, and lung. Paired Student's t tests at α = 0.01 were used to compare dose metrics after correction for multiple testing (P < 0.002). Significant correlation coefficients were used to identify associations (P < 0.01). RESULTS: Of 597 total fractions, 20 ± 13% required patient rotation. Mean translations were 0.29 ± 0.27 cm, 0.41 ± 0.34 cm, and 0.48 ± 0.33 cm in the anterior-posterior, superior-inferior, and lateral directions leading to calculated setup margins of 0.63, 0.88, and 1.10 cm, respectively. Average three-dimensional (3D) shifts correlated with the maximum distance of breast tissue from the sternum (r = 0.62) but not with body-mass index. Simulated shifts showed significant, but minor, changes in dose metrics for PTV_eval, lung, and heart. For left-sided treatments (n = 18), mean heart dose increased from 109 ± 75 cGy to 148 ± 115 cGy. Shifts from the original plan caused PTV_eval hotspots (V105%) to increase by 5.2% ± 3.8%, which correlated with the total MU of wedged fields (r = 0.59). No significant change in V95% to the cavity was found. CONCLUSIONS: Large translational variations that occur when positioning prone breast patients had small but significant dosimetric effects on 3DCRT plans. Daily CBCT may still be necessary to correct for rotational variations that occur in 20% of treatments. To maintain planned dose metrics, unintended beam shifts toward the heart and the contribution of wedged fields should be minimized.

Physician review of image registration and normal structure delineation.

INTRODUCTION: Image registration and delineation of organs at risk (OARs) are key components of three-dimensional conformal (3DCRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment planning. This study hypothesized that image registration and OAR delineation are often performed by medical physicists and/or dosimetrists and are not routinely reviewed by treating physicians. METHODS: An anonymous, internet-based survey of medical physicists and dosimetrists was distributed via the MEDPHYS and MEDDOS listserv groups. Participants were asked to characterize standard practices for completion and review of OAR contouring, target volume contouring, and image registration at their institution along with their personal training in these areas and level of comfort performing these tasks. Likert-type scales are reported as Median [Interquartile range] with scores ranging from 1 = "Extremely/All of the time" to 5 = "Not at all/Never." RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety-seven individuals responded to the survey. Overall, respondents indicated significantly less frequent physician review (3 [2-4] vs 2 [1-3]), and less confidence in the thoroughness of physician review (3 [2-4] vs 2 [1-3], P < 0.01) of OAR contours compared to image registration. Only 19% (95% CI 14-24%) of respondents reported a formal process by which OAR volumes are reviewed by physicians in their clinic. The presence of a formal review process was also associated with significantly higher perceived thoroughness of review of OAR volumes compared to clinics with no formal review process (2 [2-3] vs 3 [2-4], P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Despite the critical role of OAR delineation and image registration in the 3DCRT and IMRT treatment planning process, physician review of these tasks is not always optimal. Radiotherapy clinics should consider implementation of formal processes to promote adequate physician review of OARs and image registrations to ensure the quality and safety of radiotherapy treatment plans.

Clinical paradigms and challenges in surface guided radiation therapy: Where do we go from here?

Surface guided radiotherapy (SGRT) is becoming a routine tool for patient positioning for specific clinical sites in many clinics. However, it has not yet gained its full potential in terms of widespread adoption. This vision paper first examines some of the difficulties in transitioning to SGRT before exploring the current and future role of SGRT alongside and in concert with other imaging techniques. Finally, future horizons and innovative ideas that may shape and impact the direction of SGRT going forward are reviewed.

Effects of variability in radiomics software packages on classifying patients with radiation pneumonitis.

Purpose: While radiomics feature values can differ when extracted using different radiomics software, the effects of these variations when applied to a particular clinical task are currently unknown. The goal of our study was to use various radiomics software packages to classify patients with radiation pneumonitis (RP) and to quantify the variation in classification ability among packages. Approach: A database of serial thoracic computed tomography scans was obtained from 105 patients with esophageal cancer. Patients were treated with radiation therapy (RT), resulting in 20 patients developing RP grade ≥ 2 . Regions of interest (ROIs) were randomly placed in the lung volume of the pre-RT scan within high-dose regions ( ≥ 30 Gy ), and corresponding ROIs were anatomically matched in the post-RT scan. Three radiomics packages were compared: A1 (in-house), IBEX v1.0 beta, and PyRadiomics v.2.0.0. Radiomics features robust to deformable registration and common among radiomics packages were calculated: four first-order and four gray-level co-occurrence matrix features. Differences in feature values between time points were calculated for each feature, and logistic regression was used in conjunction with analysis of variance to classify patients with and without RP ( p < 0.006 ). Classification ability for each package was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and compared using the area under the ROC curve (AUC). Results: Of the eight radiomics features, five were significantly correlated with RP status for all three packages, whereas one feature was not significantly correlated with RP for all three packages. The remaining two features differed in whether or not they were significantly associated with RP status among the packages. Seven of the eight features agreed among the packages in whether the AUC value was significantly > 0.5 . Conclusions: Radiomics features extracted using different software packages can result in differences in classification ability.

Interstitial High-Dose-Rate Gynecologic Brachytherapy: Clinical Workflow Experience From Three Academic Institutions.

An interstitial brachytherapy approach for gynecologic cancers is typically considered for patients with lesions exceeding 5 mm within tissue or that are not easily accessible for intracavitary applications. Recommendations for treating gynecologic malignancies with this approach are available through the American Brachytherapy Society, but vary based on available resources, staffing, and logistics. The intent of this manuscript is to share the collective experience of 3 academic centers that routinely perform interstitial gynecologic brachytherapy. Discussion points include indications for interstitial implants, procedural preparations, applicator selection, anesthetic options, imaging, treatment planning objectives, clinical workflows, timelines, safety, and potential challenges. Interstitial brachytherapy is a complex, high-skill procedure requiring routine practice to optimize patient safety and treatment efficacy. Clinics planning to implement this approach into their brachytherapy practice may benefit from considering the discussion points shared in this manuscript.

A survey of surface imaging use in radiation oncology in the United States.

Surface imaging (SI) has been rapidly integrated into radiotherapy clinics across the country without specific guidelines and recommendations on its commissioning and use aside from vendor-provided information. A survey was created under the auspices of AAPM TG-302 to assess the current status of SI to identify if there is need for formal guidance. The survey was designed to determine the institutional setting of responders, availability and length of its use, commissioning procedures, and clinical applications. This survey was created in REDCap, and approved as IRB exempt to collect anonymized data. Questions were reviewed by multiple physicists to ensure concept validity and piloted by a small group of independent physicists to ensure process validity. All full members of AAPM self-identified as "therapy" or "other" were sent the survey link by email. The survey was active from February to March 2018. Of 3677 members successfully contacted, 439 completed responses; the summary of these responses provides insight on current surface imaging clinical practices, though they should not be assumed to be representative of radiation oncology as a whole. Results showed that 53.3% of respondents have SI in their clinics, mostly in treatment rooms, rarely in simulation rooms. Half of those without SI plan on purchasing it within 3 years. Over 10% have SI but do not use it clinically, 36.8% classify themselves as "expert" users, and 85.5% agreed/strongly agreed that SI guidelines are needed. Initial positioning with SI is most common for breast/chestwall and SRS/SBRT treatments, least common for pediatrics. Use of SI for intra-fraction monitoring follows a similar distribution. Gating with SI is most prevalent for breast/chestwall (66.0%) but also used in SBRT (33.0%), and non-SBRT lung/abdomen (<30%) treatments. SI is a rapidly growing technology in the field with widespread use for several anatomic sites. Guidelines and recommendations on commissioning and clinical use are warranted.