Very high-energy electron therapy as light-particle alternative to transmission proton FLASH therapy - An evaluation of dosimetric performances.

PURPOSE: Clinical translation of FLASH-radiotherapy (RT) to deep-seated tumours is still a technological challenge. One proposed solution consists of using ultra-high dose rate transmission proton (TP) beams of about 200-250 MeV to irradiate the tumour with the flat entrance of the proton depth-dose profile. This work evaluates the dosimetric performance of very high-energy electron (VHEE)-based RT (50-250 MeV) as a potential alternative to TP-based RT for the clinical transfer of the FLASH effect. METHODS: Basic physics characteristics of VHEE and TP beams were compared utilizing Monte Carlo simulations in water. A VHEE-enabled research treatment planning system was used to evaluate the plan quality achievable with VHEE beams of different energies, compared to 250 MeV TP beams for a glioblastoma, an oesophagus, and a prostate cancer case. RESULTS: Like TP, VHEE above 100 MeV can treat targets with roughly flat (within ± 20 %) depth-dose distributions. The achievable dosimetric target conformity and adjacent organs-at-risk (OAR) sparing is consequently driven for both modalities by their lateral beam penumbrae. Electron beams of 400[500] MeV match the penumbra of 200[250] MeV TP beams and penumbra is increased for lower electron energies. For the investigated patient cases, VHEE plans with energies of 150 MeV and above achieved a dosimetric plan quality comparable to that of 250 MeV TP plans. For the glioblastoma and the oesophagus case, although having a decreased conformity, even 100 MeV VHEE plans provided a similar target coverage and OAR sparing compared to TP. CONCLUSIONS: VHEE-based FLASH-RT using sufficiently high beam energies may provide a lighter-particle alternative to TP-based FLASH-RT with comparable dosimetric plan quality.

Randomized phase II selection trial of FLASH and conventional radiotherapy for patients with localized cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma or basal cell carcinoma: A study protocol.

Background: Cutaneous basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) are the most prevalent skin cancers in western countries. Surgery is the standard of care for these cancers and conventional external radiotherapy (CONV-RT) with conventional dose rate (0.03-0.06 Gy/sec) represents a good alternative when the patients or tumors are not amenable to surgery but routinely generates skin side effects. Low energy electron FLASH radiotherapy (FLASH-RT) is a new form of radiotherapy exploiting the biological advantage of the FLASH effect, which consists in delivering radiation dose in milliseconds instead of minutes in CONV-RT. In pre-clinical studies, when compared to CONV-RT, FLASH-RT induced a robust, reproducible and remarkable sparing of the normal healthy tissues, while the efficacy on tumors was preserved. In this context, we aim to prospectively evaluate FLASH-RT versus CONV-RT with regards to toxicity and oncological outcome in localized cutaneous BCC and SCC. Methods: This is a randomized selection, non-comparative, phase II study of curative FLASH-RT versus CONV-RT in patients with T1-T2 N0 M0 cutaneous BCC and SCC. Patients will be randomly allocated to low energy electron FLASH-RT (dose rate: 220-270 Gy/s) or to CONV-RT arm. Small lesions (T1) will receive a single dose of 22 Gy and large lesions (T2) will receive 30 Gy in 5 fractions of 6 Gy over two weeks.The primary endpoint evaluates safety at 6 weeks after RT through grade ≥ 3 toxicity and efficacy through local control rate at 12 months. Approximately 60 patients in total will be randomized, considering on average 1-2 lesions and a maximum of 3 lesions per patients corresponding to the total of 96 lesions required. FLASH-RT will be performed using the Mobetron® (IntraOp, USA) with high dose rate functionality.LANCE (NCT05724875) is the first randomized trial evaluating FLASH-RT and CONV-RT in a curative setting.

Comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy and helical tomotherapy for prostate cancer using Pareto fronts.

BACKGROUND: Studies comparing different radiotherapy treatment techniques-such as volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and helical tomotherapy (HT)-typically compare one treatment plan per technique. Often, some dose metrics favor one plan and others favor the other, so the final plan decision involves subjective preferences. Pareto front comparisons provide a more objective framework for comparing different treatment techniques. A Pareto front is the set of all treatment plans where improvement in one criterion is possible only by worsening another criterion. However, different Pareto fronts can be obtained depending on the chosen machine settings. PURPOSE: To compare VMAT and HT using Pareto fronts and blind expert evaluation, to explain the observed differences, and to illustrate limitations of using Pareto fronts. METHODS: We generated Pareto fronts for twenty-four prostate cancer patients treated at our clinic for VMAT and HT techniques using an in-house script that controlled a commercial treatment planning system. We varied the PTV under-coverage (100% - V95%) and the rectum mean dose, and fixed the mean doses to the bladder and femoral heads. In order to ensure a fair comparison, those fixed mean doses were the same for the two treatment techniques and the sets of objective functions were chosen so that the conformity indexes of the two treatment techniques were also the same. We used the same machine settings as are used in our clinic. Then, we compared the VMAT and HT Pareto fronts using a specific metric (clinical distance measure) and validated the comparison using a blinded expert evaluation of treatment plans on these fronts for all patients in the cohort. Furthermore, we investigated the observed differences between VMAT and HT and pointed out limitations of using Pareto fronts. RESULTS: Both clinical distance and blind treatment plan comparison showed that VMAT Pareto fronts were better than HT fronts. VMAT fronts for 10 and 6 MV beam energy were almost identical. HT fronts improved with different machine settings, but were still inferior to VMAT fronts. CONCLUSIONS: That VMAT Pareto fronts are better than HT fronts may be explained by the fact that the linear accelerator can rapidly vary the dose rate. This is an advantage in simple geometries that might vanish in more complex geometries. Furthermore, one should be cautious when speaking about Pareto optimal plans as the best possible plans, as their calculation depends on many parameters.

Clinical implementation of deep learning-based automated left breast simultaneous integrated boost radiotherapy treatment planning.

Background and purpose: Automation in radiotherapy treatment planning aims to improve both the quality and the efficiency of the process. The aim of this study was to report on a clinical implementation of a Deep Learning (DL) auto-planning model for left-sided breast cancer. Materials and methods: The DL model was developed for left-sided breast simultaneous integrated boost treatments under deep-inspiration breath-hold. Eighty manual dose distributions were revised and used for training. Ten patients were used for model validation. The model was then used to design 17 clinical auto-plans. Manual and auto-plans were scored on a list of clinical goals for both targets and organs-at-risk (OARs). For validation, predicted and mimicked dose (PD and MD, respectively) percent error (PE) was calculated with respect to manual dose. Clinical and validation cohorts were compared in terms of MD only. Results: Median values of both PD and MD validation plans fulfilled the evaluation criteria. PE was < 1% for targets for both PD and MD. PD was well aligned to manual dose while MD left lung mean dose was significantly less (median:5.1 Gy vs 6.1 Gy). The left-anterior-descending artery maximum dose was found out of requirements (median values:+5.9 Gy and + 2.9 Gy, for PD and MD respectively) in three validation cases, while it was reduced for clinical cases (median:-1.9 Gy). No other clinically significant differences were observed between clinical and validation cohorts. Conclusion: Small OAR differences observed during the model validation were not found clinically relevant. The clinical implementation outcomes confirmed the robustness of the model.

Influence of optimisation parameters on directly deliverable Pareto fronts explored for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: In inverse radiotherapy treatment planning, the Pareto front is the set of optimal solutions to the multi-criteria problem of adequately irradiating the planning target volume (PTV) while reducing dose to organs at risk (OAR). The Pareto front depends on the chosen optimisation parameters whose influence (clinically relevant versus not clinically relevant) is investigated in this paper. METHODS: Thirty-one prostate cancer patients treated at our clinic were randomly selected. We developed an in-house Python script that controlled the commercial treatment planning system RayStation to calculate directly deliverable Pareto fronts. We calculated reference Pareto fronts for a given set of objective functions, varying the PTV coverage and the mean dose of the primary OAR (rectum) and fixing the mean doses of the secondary OARs (bladder and femoral heads). We calculated the fronts for different sets of objective functions and different mean doses to secondary OARs. We compared all fronts using a specific metric (clinical distance measure). RESULTS: The in-house script was validated for directly deliverable Pareto front calculations in two and three dimensions. The Pareto fronts depended on the choice of objective functions and fixed mean doses to secondary OARs, whereas the parameters most influencing the front and leading to clinically relevant differences were the dose gradient around the PTV, the weight of the PTV objective function, and the bladder mean dose. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that for multi-criteria optimisation of prostate treatments using external therapy, dose gradient around the PTV and bladder mean dose are the most influencial parameters.

3D-conformal very-high energy electron therapy as candidate modality for FLASH-RT: A treatment planning study for glioblastoma and lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pre-clinical ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) electron irradiations on time scales of 100 ms have demonstrated a remarkable sparing of brain and lung tissues while retaining tumor efficacy when compared to conventional dose rate irradiations. While clinically-used gantries and intensity modulation techniques are too slow to match such time scales, novel very-high energy electron (VHEE, 50-250 MeV) radiotherapy (RT) devices using 3D-conformed broad VHEE beams are designed to deliver UHDR treatments that fulfill these timing requirements. PURPOSE: To assess the dosimetric plan quality obtained using VHEE-based 3D-conformal RT (3D-CRT) for treatments of glioblastoma and lung cancer patients and compare the resulting treatment plans to those delivered by standard-of-care intensity modulated photon RT (IMRT) techniques. METHODS: Seven glioblastoma patients and seven lung cancer patients were planned with VHEE-based 3D-CRT using 3 to 16 coplanar beams with equidistant angular spacing and energies of 100 and 200 MeV using a forward planning approach. Dose distributions, dose-volume histograms, coverage (V95% ) and homogeneity (HI98% ) for the planning target volume (PTV), as well as near-maximum doses (D2% ) and mean doses (Dmean ) for organs-at-risk (OAR) were evaluated and compared to clinical IMRT plans. RESULTS: Mean differences of V95% and HI98% of all VHEE plans were within 2% or better of the IMRT reference plans. Glioblastoma plan dose metrics obtained with VHEE configurations of 200 MeV and 3-16 beams were either not significantly different or were significantly improved compared to the clinical IMRT reference plans. All OAR plan dose metrics evaluated for VHEE plans created using 5 beams of 100 MeV were either not significantly different or within 3% on average, except for Dmean for the body, Dmean for the brain, D2% for the brain stem, and D2% for the chiasm, which were significantly increased by 1, 2, 6, and 8 Gy, respectively (however below clinical constraints). Similarly, the dose metrics for lung cancer patients were also either not significantly different or were significantly improved compared to the reference plans for VHEE configurations with 200 MeV and 5 to 16 beams with the exception of D2% and Dmean to the spinal canal (however below clinical constraints). For the lung cancer cases, the VHEE configurations using 100 MeV or only 3 beams resulted in significantly worse dose metrics for some OAR. Differences in dose metrics were, however, strongly patient-specific and similar for some patient cases. CONCLUSIONS: VHEE-based 3D-CRT may deliver conformal treatments to simple, mostly convex target shapes in the brain and the thorax with a limited number of critical adjacent OAR using a limited number of beams (as low as 3 to 7). Using such treatment techniques, a dosimetric plan quality comparable to that of standard-of-care IMRT can be achieved. Hence, from a treatment planning perspective, 3D-conformal UHDR VHEE treatments delivered on time scales of 100 ms represent a promising candidate technique for the clinical transfer of the FLASH effect.

Effect of Conventional and Ultrahigh Dose Rate FLASH Irradiations on Preclinical Tumor Models: A Systematic Analysis.

PURPOSE: Compared with conventional dose rate irradiation (CONV), ultrahigh dose rate irradiation (UHDR) has shown superior normal tissue sparing. However, a clinically relevant widening of the therapeutic window by UHDR, termed "FLASH effect," also depends on the tumor toxicity obtained by UHDR. Based on a combined analysis of published literature, the current study examined the hypothesis of tumor isoefficacy for UHDR versus CONV and aimed to identify potential knowledge gaps to inspire future in vivo studies. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A systematic literature search identified publications assessing in vivo tumor responses comparing UHDR and CONV. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were performed, including combined analyses of tumor growth and survival data. RESULTS: We identified 66 data sets from 15 publications that compared UHDR and CONV for tumor efficacy. The median number of animals per group was 9 (range 3-15) and the median follow-up period was 30.5 days (range 11-230) after the first irradiation. Tumor growth assays were the predominant model used. Combined statistical analyses of tumor growth and survival data are consistent with UHDR isoefficacy compared with CONV. Only 1 study determined tumor-controlling dose (TCD50) and reported statistically nonsignificant differences. CONCLUSIONS: The combined quantitative analyses of tumor responses support the assumption of UHDR isoefficacy compared with CONV. However, the comparisons are primarily based on heterogeneous tumor growth assays with limited numbers of animals and short follow-up, and most studies do not assess long-term tumor control probability. Therefore, the assays may be insensitive in resolving smaller response differences, such as responses of radioresistant tumor subclones. Hence, tumor cure experiments, including additional TCD50 experiments, are needed to confirm the assumption of isoeffectiveness in curative settings.

Independent Reproduction of the FLASH Effect on the Gastrointestinal Tract: A Multi-Institutional Comparative Study.

FLASH radiation therapy (RT) is a promising new paradigm in radiation oncology. However, a major question that remains is the robustness and reproducibility of the FLASH effect when different irradiators are used on animals or patients with different genetic backgrounds, diets, and microbiomes, all of which can influence the effects of radiation on normal tissues. To address questions of rigor and reproducibility across different centers, we analyzed independent data sets from The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and from Lausanne University (CHUV). Both centers investigated acute effects after total abdominal irradiation to C57BL/6 animals delivered by the FLASH Mobetron system. The two centers used similar beam parameters but otherwise conducted the studies independently. The FLASH-enabled animal survival and intestinal crypt regeneration after irradiation were comparable between the two centers. These findings, together with previously published data using a converted linear accelerator, show that a robust and reproducible FLASH effect can be induced as long as the same set of irradiation parameters are used.

Salvage LATTICE radiotherapy for a growing tumour despite conventional radio chemotherapy treatment of lung cancer.

A 40-year-old patient with cT4cN1M0 squamous cell lung cancer of the upper right lobe received preoperative induction chemotherapy. Systemic induction treatment failed to reverse tumour growth with the addition of conventional radiotherapy (RT). A salvage lattice RT boost of 12 Gy was administered immediately to increase the dose to the tumour. Conventional RT was resumed at the planned dose of 60 Gy. The tumour shrank rapidly, and the patient was surged. The postoperative pathology remained ypT0ypN0 status.

VoiceS: voice quality after transoral CO2 laser surgery versus single vocal cord irradiation for unilateral stage 0 and I glottic larynx cancer-a randomized phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: Surgery and radiotherapy are well-established standards of care for unilateral stage 0 and I early-stage glottic cancer (ESGC). Based on comparative studies and meta-analyses, functional and oncological outcomes after both treatment modalities are similar. Historically, radiotherapy (RT) has been performed by irradiation of the whole larynx. However, only the involved vocal cord is being treated with recently introduced hypofractionated concepts that result in 8 to 10-fold smaller target volumes. Retrospective data argues for an improvement in voice quality with non-inferior local control. Based on these findings, single vocal cord irradiation (SVCI) has been implemented as a routine approach in some institutions for ESGC in recent years. However, prospective data directly comparing SVCI with surgery is lacking. The aim of VoiceS is to fill this gap. METHODS: In this prospective randomized multi-center open-label phase III study with a superiority design, 34 patients with histopathologically confirmed, untreated, unilateral stage 0-I ESGC (unilateral cTis or cT1a) will be randomized to SVCI or transoral CO2-laser microsurgical cordectomy (TLM). Average difference in voice quality, measured by using the voice handicap index (VHI) will be modeled over four time points (6, 12, 18, and 24 months). Primary endpoint of this study will be the patient-reported subjective voice quality between 6 to 24 months after randomization. Secondary endpoints will include perceptual impression of the voice via roughness - breathiness - hoarseness (RBH) assessment at the above-mentioned time points. Additionally, quantitative characteristics of voice, loco-regional tumor control at 2 and 5 years, and treatment toxicity at 2 and 5 years based on CTCAE v.5.0 will be reported. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, VoiceS is the first randomized phase III trial comparing SVCI with TLM. Results of this study may lead to improved decision-making in the treatment of ESGC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04057209. Registered on 15 August 2019. Cantonal Ethics Committee KEK-BE 2019-01506.

Design and validation of a dosimetric comparison scheme tailored for ultra-high dose-rate electron beams to support multicenter FLASH preclinical studies.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We describe a multicenter cross validation of ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) (>= 40 Gy/s) irradiation in order to bring a dosimetric consensus in absorbed dose to water. UHDR refers to dose rates over 100-1000 times those of conventional clinical beams. UHDR irradiations have been a topic of intense investigation as they have been reported to induce the FLASH effect in which normal tissues exhibit reduced toxicity relative to conventional dose rates. The need to establish optimal beam parameters capable of achieving the in vivo FLASH effect has become paramount. It is therefore necessary to validate and replicate dosimetry across multiple sites conducting UHDR studies with distinct beam configurations and experimental set-ups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a custom cuboid phantom with a cylindrical cavity (5 mm diameter by 10.4 mm length) designed to contain three type of dosimeters (thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs), alanine pellets, and Gafchromic films), irradiations were conducted at expected doses of 7.5 to 16 Gy delivered at UHDR or conventional dose rates using various electron beams at the Radiation Oncology Departments of the CHUV in Lausanne, Switzerland and Stanford University, CA. RESULTS: Data obtained between replicate experiments for all dosimeters were in excellent agreement (±3%). In general, films and TLDs were in closer agreement with each other, while alanine provided the closest match between the expected and measured dose, with certain caveats related to absolute reference dose. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, successful cross-validation of different electron beams operating under different energies and configurations lays the foundation for establishing dosimetric consensus for UHDR irradiation studies, and, if widely implemented, decrease uncertainty between different sites investigating the mechanistic basis of the FLASH effect.

FLASH radiotherapy treatment planning and models for electron beams.

The FLASH effect designates normal tissue sparing at ultra-high dose rate (UHDR, >40 Gy/s) compared to conventional dose rate (∼0.1 Gy/s) irradiation while maintaining tumour control and has the potential to improve the therapeutic ratio of radiotherapy (RT). UHDR high-energy electron (HEE, 4-20 MeV) beams are currently a mainstay for investigating the clinical potential of FLASH RT for superficial tumours. In the future very-high energy electron (VHEE, 50-250 MeV) UHDR beams may be used to treat deep-seated tumours. UHDR HEE treatment planning focused at its initial stage on accurate dosimetric modelling of converted and dedicated UHDR electron RT devices for the clinical transfer of FLASH RT. VHEE treatment planning demonstrated promising dosimetric performance compared to clinical photon RT techniques in silico and was used to evaluate and optimise the design of novel VHEE RT devices. Multiple metrics and models have been proposed for a quantitative description of the FLASH effect in treatment planning, but an improved experimental characterization and understanding of the FLASH effect is needed to allow for an accurate and validated modelling of the effect in treatment planning. The importance of treatment planning for electron FLASH RT will augment as the field moves forward to treat more complex clinical indications and target sites. In this review, TPS developments in HEE and VHEE are presented considering beam models, characteristics, and future FLASH applications.

The minimal FLASH sparing effect needed to compensate the increase of radiobiological damage due to hypofractionation for late-reacting tissues.

PURPOSE: Normal tissue (NT) sparing by ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) irradiations compared to conventional dose rate (CONV) irradiations while being isotoxic to the tumor has been termed "FLASH effect" and has been observed when large doses per fraction (d ≳ 5 Gy) have been delivered. Since hypofractionated treatment schedules are known to increase toxicities of late-reacting tissues compared to normofractionated schedules for many clinical scenarios at CONV dose rates, we developed a formalism based on the biologically effective dose (BED) to assess the minimum magnitude of the FLASH effect needed to compensate the loss of late-reacting NT sparing when reducing the number of fractions compared to a normofractionated CONV treatment schedule while remaining isoeffective to the tumor. METHODS: By requiring the same BED for the tumor, we derived the "break-even NT sparing weighting factor" WBE for the linear-quadratic (LQ) and LQ-linear (LQ-L) models for an NT region irradiated at a relative dose r (relative to the prescribed dose per fraction d to the tumor). WBE was evaluated numerically for multiple values of d and r, and for different tumor and NT α/ß-ratios. WBE was compared against currently available experimental data on the magnitude of the NT sparing provided by the FLASH effect for single fraction doses. RESULTS: For many clinically relevant scenarios, WBE decreases steeply initially for d > 2 Gy for late-reacting tissues with (α/ß)NT ≈ 3 Gy, implying that a significant NT sparing by the FLASH effect (between 15% and 30%) is required to counteract the increased radiobiological damage experienced by late-reacting NT for hypofractionated treatments with d < 10 Gy compared to normofractionated treatments that are equieffective to the tumor. When using the LQ model with generic α/ß-ratios for tumor and late-reacting NT of (α/ß)T  = 10 Gy and (α/ß)NT  = 3 Gy, respectively, most currently available experimental evidence about the magnitude of NT sparing by the FLASH effect suggests no net NT sparing benefit for hypofractionated FLASH radiotherapy (RT) in the high-dose region when compared with WBE . Instead, clinical indications with more similar α/ß-ratios of the tumor and dose-limiting NT toxicities [i.e., (α/ß)T  ≈ (α/ß)NT ], such as prostate treatments, are generally less penalized by hypofractionated treatments and need consequently smaller magnitudes of NT sparing by the FLASH effect to achieve a net benefit. For strongly hypofractionated treatments (>10-15 Gy/fraction), the LQ-L model predicts, unlike the LQ model, a larger WBE suggesting a possible benefit of strongly hypofractionated FLASH RT, even for generic α/ß-ratios of (α/ß)T  = 10 Gy and (α/ß)NT  = 3 Gy. However, knowledge on the isoeffect scaling for high doses per fraction (≳10 Gy/fraction) and its modeling is currently limited and impedes accurate and reliable predictions for such strongly hypofractionated treatments. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a formalism that quantifies the minimal NT sparing by the FLASH effect needed to compensate for hypofractionation, based on the LQ and LQ-L models. For a given hypofractionated UHDR treatment scenario and magnitude of the FLASH effect, the formalism predicts if a net NT sparing benefit is expected compared to a respective normofractionated CONV treatment.

Normal Tissue Sparing by FLASH as a Function of Single-Fraction Dose: A Quantitative Analysis.

PURPOSE: The FLASH effect designates normal tissue sparing by ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) compared with conventional dose rate irradiation without compromising tumor control. Understanding the magnitude of this effect and its dependency on dose are essential requirements for an optimized clinical translation of FLASH radiation therapy. In this context, we evaluated available experimental data on the magnitudes of normal tissue sparing provided by the FLASH effect as a function of dose, and followed a phenomenological data-driven approach for its parameterization. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We gathered available in vivo data of normal tissue sparing of conventional (CONV) versus UHDR single-fraction doses and converted these to a common scale using isoeffect dose ratios, hereafter referred to as FLASH-modifying factors (FMF= (DCONV/DUHDR)|isoeffect). We then evaluated the suitability of a piecewise linear function with 2 pieces to parametrize FMF × DUHDR as a function of dose DUHDR. RESULTS: We found that the magnitude of FMF generally decreases (ie, sparing increases) as a function of single-fraction dose, and that individual data series can be described by the piecewise linear function. The sparing magnitude appears organ-specific, and pooled skin-reaction data followed a consistent trend as a function of dose. Average FMF values and their standard deviations were 0.95 ± 0.11 for all data <10 Gy, 0.92 ± 0.06 for mouse gut data between 10 and 25 Gy, and 0.96 ± 0.07 and 0.71 ± 0.06 for mammalian skin-reaction data between 10 and 25 Gy and >25 Gy, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of normal tissue sparing by FLASH increases with dose and is dependent on the irradiated tissue. A piecewise linear function can parameterize currently available individual data series.

Commissioning and validation of RayStation treatment planning system for CyberKnife M6.

BACKGROUND: RaySearch (AB, Stockholm) has released a module for CyberKnife (CK) planning within its RayStation (RS) treatment planning system (TPS). PURPOSE: To create and validate beam models of fixed, Iris, and multileaf collimators (MLC) of the CK M6 for Monte Carlo (MC) and collapsed cone (CC) algorithms in the RS TPS. METHODS: Measurements needed for the creation of the beam models were performed in a water tank with a stereotactic PTW 60018 diode. Both CC and MC models were optimized in RS by minimizing the differences between the measured and computed profiles and percentage depth doses. The models were then validated by comparing dose from the plans created in RS with both single and multiple beams in different phantom conditions with the corresponding measured dose. Irregular field shapes and off-axis beams were also tested for the MLC. Validation measurements were performed using an A1SL ionization chamber, EBT3 Gafchromic films, and a PTW 1000 SRS detector. Finally, patient-specific QAs with gamma criteria of 3%/1 mm were performed for each model. RESULTS: The models were created in a straightforward manner with efficient tools available in RS. The differences between computed and measured doses were within ±1% for most of the configurations tested and reached a maximum of 3.2% for measurements at a depth of 19.5-cm. With respect to all collimators and algorithms, the maximum averaged dose difference was 0.8% when considering absolute dose measurements on the central axis. The patient-specific QAs led to a mean result of 98% of points fulfilling gamma criteria. CONCLUSIONS: We created both CC and MC models for fixed, Iris, and MLC collimators in RS. The dose differences for all collimators and algorithms were within ±1%, except for depths larger than 9 cm. This allowed us to validate both models for clinical use.

Determination of the ion collection efficiency of the Razor Nano Chamber for ultra-high dose-rate electron beams.

BACKGROUND: Ultra-high dose-rate (UHDR) irradiations (>40 Gy/s) have recently garnered interest in radiotherapy (RT) as they can trigger the so-called "FLASH" effect, namely a higher tolerance of normal tissues in comparison with conventional dose rates when a sufficiently high dose is delivered to the tissue. To transfer this to clinical RT treatments, adapted methods and practical tools for online dosimetry need to be developed. Ionization chambers remain the gold standards in RT but the charge recombination effects may be very significant at such high dose rates, limiting the use of some of these dosimeters. The reduction of the sensitive volume size can be an interesting characteristic to reduce such effects. PURPOSE: In that context, we have investigated the charge collection behavior of the recent IBA Razor™ Nano Chamber (RNC) in UHDR pulses to evaluate its potential interest for FLASH RT. METHODS: In order to quantify the RNC ion collection efficiency (ICE), simultaneous dose measurements were performed under UHDR electron beams with dose-rate-independent Gafchromic™ EBT3 films that were used as the dose reference. A dose-per-pulse range from 0.01 to 30 Gy was investigated, varying the source-to-surface distance, the pulse duration (1 and 3 µs investigated) and the LINAC gun grid tension as irradiation parameters. In addition, the RNC measurements were corrected from the inherent beam shot-to-shot variations using an independent current transformer. An empirical logistic model was used to fit the RNC collection efficiency measurements and the results were compared with the Advanced Markus plane parallel ion chamber. RESULTS: The RNC ICE was found to decrease as the dose-per-pulse increases, starting from doses above 0.2 Gy/pulse and down to 40% of efficiency at 30 Gy/pulse. The RNC resulted in a higher ICE for a given dose-per-pulse in comparison with the Markus chamber, with a measured efficiency found higher than 85 and 55% for 1 and 10 Gy/pulse, respectively, whereas the Markus ICE was of 60 and 25% for the same doses. However, the RNC shows a higher sensitivity to the pulse duration than the Advanced Markus chamber, with a lower efficiency found at 1 µs than at 3 µs, suggesting that this chamber could be more sensitive to the dose rate within the pulse. CONCLUSIONS: The results confirmed that the small sensitive volume of the RNC ensures higher ICE compared with larger chambers. The RNC was thus found to be a promising online dosimetry tool for FLASH RT and we proposed an ion recombination model to correct its response up to extreme dose-per-pulses of 30 Gy.

Dose- and Volume-Limiting Late Toxicity of FLASH Radiotherapy in Cats with Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Nasal Planum and in Mini Pigs.

PURPOSE: The FLASH effect is characterized by normal tissue sparing without compromising tumor control. Although demonstrated in various preclinical models, safe translation of FLASH-radiotherapy stands to benefit from larger vertebrate animal models. Based on prior results, we designed a randomized phase III trial to investigate the FLASH effect in cat patients with spontaneous tumors. In parallel, the sparing capacity of FLASH-radiotherapy was studied on mini pigs by using large field irradiation. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Cats with T1-T2, N0 carcinomas of the nasal planum were randomly assigned to two arms of electron irradiation: arm 1 was the standard of care (SoC) and used 10 × 4.8 Gy (90% isodose); arm 2 used 1 × 30 Gy (90% isodose) FLASH. Mini pigs were irradiated using applicators of increasing size and a single surface dose of 31 Gy FLASH. RESULTS: In cats, acute side effects were mild and similar in both arms. The trial was prematurely interrupted due to maxillary bone necrosis, which occurred 9 to 15 months after radiotherapy in 3 of 7 cats treated with FLASH-radiotherapy (43%), as compared with 0 of 9 cats treated with SoC. All cats were tumor-free at 1 year in both arms, with one cat progressing later in each arm. In pigs, no acute toxicity was recorded, but severe late skin necrosis occurred in a volume-dependent manner (7-9 months), which later resolved. CONCLUSIONS: The reported outcomes point to the caveats of translating single-high-dose FLASH-radiotherapy and emphasizes the need for caution and further investigations. See related commentary by Maity and Koumenis, p. 3636.

The 3rd ESTRO-EFOMP core curriculum for medical physics experts in radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To update the 2011 ESTRO-EFOMP core curriculum (CC) for education and training of medical physics experts (MPE)s working in radiotherapy (RT), in line with recent EU guidelines, and to provide a framework for European countries to develop their own curriculum. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Since September 2019, 27 European MPEs representing ESTRO, EFOMP and National Societies, with expertise covering all subfields of RT physics, have revised the CC for recent advances in RT. The ESTRO and EFOMP Education Councils, all European National Societies and international stakeholders have been involved in the revision process. RESULTS: A 4-year training period has been proposed, with a total of 240 ECTS (European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System). Training entrance levels have been defined ensuring the necessary physics and mathematics background. The concept of competency-based education has been reinforced by introducing the CanMEDS role framework. The updated CC includes (ablative) stereotactic-, MR-guided- and adaptive RT, particle therapy, advanced automation, complex quantitative data analysis (big data/artificial intelligence), use of biological images, and personalized treatments. Due to the continuously increasing RT complexity, more emphasis has been given to quality management. Clear requirements for a research project ensure a proper preparation of MPE residents for their central role in science and innovation in RT. CONCLUSION: This updated, 3rd edition of the CC provides an MPE training framework for safe and effective practice of modern RT, while acknowledging the significant efforts needed in some countries to reach this level. The CC can contribute to further harmonization of MPE training in Europe.