Optimal 68Ga-PSMA and 18F-PSMA PET window levelling for gross tumour volume delineation in primary prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: This study proposes optimal tracer-specific threshold-based window levels for PSMA PET-based intraprostatic gross tumour volume (GTV) contouring to reduce interobserver delineation variability. METHODS: Nine 68Ga-PSMA-11 and nine 18F-PSMA-1007 PET scans including GTV delineations of four expert teams (GTVmanual) and a majority-voted GTV (GTVmajority) were assessed with respect to a registered histopathological GTV (GTVhisto) as the gold standard reference. The standard uptake values (SUVs) per voxel were converted to a percentage (SUV%) relative to the SUVmax. The statistically optimised SUV% threshold (SOST) was defined as those that maximises accuracy for threshold-based contouring. A leave-one-out cross-validation receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to determine the SOST for each tracer. The SOST analysis was performed twice, first using the GTVhisto contour as training structure (GTVSOST-H) and second using the GTVmajority contour as training structure (GTVSOST-MA) to correct for any limited misregistration. The accuracy of both GTVSOST-H and GTVSOST-MA was calculated relative to GTVhisto in the 'leave-one-out' patient of each fold and compared with the accuracy of GTVmanual. RESULTS: ROC curve analysis for 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET revealed a median threshold of 25 SUV% (range, 22-27 SUV%) and 41 SUV% (40-43 SUV%) for GTVSOST-H and GTVSOST-MA, respectively. For 18F-PSMA-1007 PET, a median threshold of 42 SUV% (39-45 SUV%) for GTVSOST-H and 44 SUV% (42-45 SUV%) for GTVSOST-MA was found. A significant pairwise difference was observed when comparing the accuracy of the GTVSOST-H contours with the median accuracy of the GTVmanual contours (median, - 2.5%; IQR, - 26.5-0.2%; p = 0.020), whereas no significant pairwise difference was found for the GTVSOST-MA contours (median, - 0.3%; IQR, - 4.4-0.6%; p = 0.199). CONCLUSIONS: Threshold-based contouring using GTVmajority-trained SOSTs achieves an accuracy comparable with manual contours in delineating GTVhisto. The median SOSTs of 41 SUV% for 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET and 44 SUV% for 18F-PSMA-1007 PET form a base for tracer-specific window levelling. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov ; NCT03327675; 31-10-2017.

Uniform FDG-PET guided GRAdient Dose prEscription to reduce late Radiation Toxicity (UPGRADE-RT): study protocol for a randomized clinical trial with dose reduction to the elective neck in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In definitive radiation therapy for head and neck cancer, clinically uninvolved cervical lymph nodes are irradiated with a so-called 'elective dose' in order to achieve control of clinically occult metastases. As a consequence of high-resolution diagnostic imaging, occult tumor volume has significantly decreased in the last decades. Since the elective dose is dependent on occult tumor volume, the currently used elective dose may be higher than necessary. Because bilateral irradiation of the neck contributes to dysphagia, xerostomia and hypothyroidism in a dose dependent way, dose de-escalation to these regions can open a window of opportunity to reduce toxicity and improve quality of life after treatment. METHODS: UPGRADE-RT is a multicenter, phase III, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Patients to be treated with definitive radiation therapy for a newly diagnosed stage T2-4 N0-2 M0 squamous cell carcinoma of the oropharynx, hypopharynx or larynx are eligible. Exclusion criteria are recurrent disease, oncologic surgery to the head and neck area, concomitant chemotherapy or epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors. In total, 300 patients will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio to a treatment arm with or without de-escalation of the elective radiation dose and introduction of an intermediate dose-level for selected lymph nodes. Radiation therapy planning FDG-PET/CT-scans will be acquired to guide risk assessment of borderline-sized cervical nodes that can be treated with the intermediate dose level. Treatment will be given with intensity-modulated radiation therapy or volumetric arc therapy with simultaneous-integrated boost using an accelerated fractionation schedule, 33 fractions in 5 weeks. The primary endpoint is 'normalcy of diet' at 1 year after treatment (toxicity). The secondary endpoint is the actuarial rate of recurrence in electively irradiated lymph nodes at 2 years after treatment (safety). DISCUSSION: The objective of the UPGRADE-RT trial is to investigate whether de-escalation of elective radiation dose and the introduction of an intermediate dose-level for borderline sized lymph nodes in the treatment of head and neck cancer will result in less radiation sequelae and improved quality of life after treatment without compromising the recurrence rate in the electively treated neck. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02442375 .

High incidence of implantable cardioverter defibrillator malfunctions during radiation therapy: neutrons as a probable cause of soft errors.

AIMS: To investigate the behaviour of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) function during actual radiotherapy sessions. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifteen patients with an ICD underwent 17 radiation treatments for cancer [cumulative dose to the tumour was between 16 Gray (Gy) and 70 Gy; photon beams with maximum energies between 6 megaelectronvolt (MeV) and 18 MeV were employed]. During every session, the ICD was programmed to a monitoring mode to prevent inappropriate therapy delivery. Afterwards, the ICDs were interrogated to ensure proper function. Calculated radiation dose at the ICD site was <1 Gy in all patients. In 5 out of 17 radiation treatments (29%) the ICDs showed 6 malfunctions (35%). We noticed four disturbances in the memory data or device resets during radiation treatment and one case of inappropriate ventricular fibrillation detection due to external noise. In one case a late device data error was observed. All malfunctions occurred at 10 and 18 MeV beam energies. CONCLUSION: Despite the fact that all recommended precautions were taken to minimize the damage to the ICDs during radiotherapy and the calculated dose to the ICDs was <1 Gy, in 29% of the treatments a malfunction occurred. We observed a possible correlation between the beam energy and the malfunctions. This correlation may be due to an interaction between neutrons produced in the head of the linear accelerator at beam energies ≥10 MeV, and boron-10 which is present in the integrated circuit.

From once-weekly to semi-weekly whole prostate gland stereotactic radiotherapy with focal boosting: Primary endpoint analysis of the multicenter phase II hypo-FLAME 2.0 trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The hypo-FLAME trial showed that once-weekly (QW) focal boosted prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is associated with acceptable acute genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. Currently, we investigated the safety of reducing the overall treatment time (OTT) of focal boosted prostate SBRT from 29 to 15 days. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer were treated with SBRT delivering 35 Gy in 5 fractions to the whole prostate gland with an iso-toxic boost up to 50 Gy to the intraprostatic lesion(s) in a semi-weekly (BIW) schedule. The primary endpoint was radiation-induced acute toxicity (CTCAE v5.0). Changes in quality of life (QoL) were examined in terms of proportions achieving a minimal clinically important change (MCIC). Finally, acute toxicity and QoL scores of the BIW schedule were compared with the results of the prior QW hypo-FLAME schedule (n = 100). RESULTS: Between August 2020 and February 2022, 124 patients were enrolled and treated BIW. No grade ≥3 GU or GI toxicity was observed. The 90-days cumulative incidence of grade 2 GU and GI toxicity rates were 47.5% and 7.4%, respectively. Patients treated QW scored significant less grade 2 GU toxicity (34.0%, p = 0.01). No significant differences in acute GI toxicity were observed. Furthermore, patients treated QW had a superior acute bowel and urinary QoL. CONCLUSION: Semi-weekly prostate SBRT with iso-toxic focal boosting is associated with acceptable acute GU and GI toxicity. Based on the comparison between the QW and BIW schedule, patients should be counselled regarding the short-term advantages of a more protracted schedule. Registration number ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04045717.

Patterns of Failure Following External Beam Radiotherapy With or Without an Additional Focal Boost in the Randomized Controlled FLAME Trial for Localized Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Focal dose escalation in external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) showed an increase in 5-yr biochemical disease-free survival in the Focal Lesion Ablative Microboost in Prostate Cancer (FLAME) trial. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the effect of a focal boost to intraprostatic lesions on local failure-free survival (LFS) and regional + distant metastasis-free survival (rdMFS). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer were included in FLAME, a phase 3, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. INTERVENTION: Standard treatment of 77 Gy to the entire prostate in 35 fractions was compared to an additional boost to the macroscopic tumor of up to 95 Gy during EBRT. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: LFS and rdMFS, measured via any type of imaging, were compared between the treatment arms using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses. Dose-response curves were created for local failure (LF) and regional + distant metastatic failure (rdMF) using logistic regression. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 571 patients were included in the FLAME trial. Over median follow-up of 72 mo (interquartile range 58-86), focal boosting decreased LF (hazard ratio [HR] 0.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.14-0.78) and rdMF (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35-0.93). Dose-response curves showed that a greater dose to the tumor resulted in lower LF and rdMF rates. CONCLUSIONS: A clear dose-response relation for LF and rdMF was observed, suggesting that adequate focal dose escalation to intraprostatic lesions prevents undertreatment of the primary tumor, resulting in an improvement rdMF. PATIENT SUMMARY: Radiotherapy is a treatment option for high-risk prostate cancer. The FLAME trial has shown that a high dose specifically targeted at the tumor within the prostate will result in better disease outcome, with less likelihood of regional and distant disease spread. The FLAME trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT01168479.

Urethral and bladder dose-effect relations for late genitourinary toxicity following external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer in the FLAME trial.

PURPOSE OR OBJECTIVES: The FLAME trial (NCT01168479) showed that by adding a focal boost to conventional fractionated EBRT in the treatment of localized prostate cancer, the five-year biochemical disease-free survival increased, without significantly increasing toxicity. The aim of the present study was to investigate the association between radiation dose to the bladder and urethra and genitourinary (GU) toxicity grade ≥2 in the entire cohort. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The dose-effect relations of the urethra and bladder dose, separately, and GU toxicity grade ≥2 (CTCAE 3.0) up to five years after treatment were assessed. A mixed model analysis for repeated measurements was used, adjusting for age, diabetes mellitus, T-stage, baseline GU toxicity grade ≥1 and institute. Additionally, the association between the dose and separate GU toxicity subdomains were investigated. RESULTS: Dose-effect relations were observed for the dose (Gy) to the bladder D2 cm3 and urethra D0.1 cm3, with adjusted odds ratios of 1.14 (95% CI 1.12-1.16, p < 0.0001) and 1.12 (95% CI 1.11-1.14, p < 0.0001), respectively. Additionally, associations between the dose to the urethra and bladder and the subdomains urinary frequency, urinary retention and urinary incontinence were observed. CONCLUSION: Further increasing the dose to the bladder and urethra will result in a significant increase in GU toxicity following EBRT. Focal boost treatment plans should incorporate a urethral dose-constraint. Further treatment optimization to increase the focal boost dose without increasing the dose to the urethra and other organs at risk should be a focus for future research, as we have shown that a focal boost is beneficial in the treatment of prostate cancer.

Focal Boost to the Intraprostatic Tumor in External Beam Radiotherapy for Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer: Results From the FLAME Randomized Phase III Trial.

PURPOSE: This study investigates whether focal boosting of the macroscopic visible tumor with external beam radiotherapy increases biochemical disease-free survival (bDFS) in patients with localized prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the phase III, multicenter, randomized controlled Focal Lesion Ablative Microboost in Prostate Cancer trial, 571 patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer were enrolled between 2009 and 2015. Patients assigned to standard treatment received 77 Gy (fractions of 2.2 Gy) to the entire prostate. The focal boost arm received an additional simultaneous integrated focal boost up to 95 Gy (fractions up to 2.7 Gy) to the intraprostatic lesion visible on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Organ at risk constraints were prioritized over the focal boost dose. The primary end point was 5-year bDFS. Secondary end points were disease-free survival (DFS), distant metastases-free survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, overall survival, toxicity, and health-related quality of life. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 72 months. Biochemical DFS was significantly higher in the focal boost compared with the standard arm (hazard ratio 0.45, 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.71, P < .001). At 5-year follow-up bDFS was 92% and 85%, respectively. We did not observe differences in prostate cancer-specific survival (P = .49) and overall survival (P = .50). The cumulative incidence of late genitourinary and GI toxicity grade ≥ 2 was 23% and 12% in the standard arm versus 28% and 13% in the focal boost arm, respectively. Both for late toxicity as health-related quality of life, differences were small and not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The addition of a focal boost to the intraprostatic lesion improved bDFS for patients with localized intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer without impacting toxicity and quality of life. The Focal Lesion Ablative Microboost in Prostate Cancer study shows that a high focal boost strategy to improve tumor control while respecting organ at risk dose constraints is effective and safe.

Anorectal dose-effect relations for late gastrointestinal toxicity following external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer in the FLAME trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The phase III FLAME trial (NCT01168479) showed an increase in five-year biochemical disease-free survival, with no significant increase in toxicity when adding a focal boost to external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for localized prostate cancer [Kerkmeijer et al. JCO 2021]. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between delivered radiation dose to the anorectum and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity (grade ≥2). MATERIAL AND METHODS: All patients in the FLAME trial were analyzed, irrespective of treatment arm. The dose-effect relation of the anorectal dose parameters (D2cm3 and D50%) and GI toxicity grade ≥2 in four years of follow-up was assessed using a mixed model analysis for repeated measurements, adjusted for age, cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, T-stage, baseline toxicity grade ≥1, hormonal therapy and institute. RESULTS: A dose-effect relation for D2cm3 and D50% was observed with adjusted odds ratios of 1.17 (95% CI 1.13-1.21, p < 0.0001) and 1.20 (95% CI 1.14-1.25, p < 0.0001) for GI toxicity, respectively. CONCLUSION: Although there was no difference in toxicity between study arms, a higher radiation dose to the anorectum was associated with a statistically significant increase in GI toxicity following EBRT for prostate cancer. This dose-effect relation was present for both large and small anorectal volumes. Therefore, further increase in dose to the anorectum should be weighed against the benefit of focal dose escalation for prostate cancer.

68Ga-PSMA-11 PET, 18F-PSMA-1007 PET, and MRI for Gross Tumor Volume Delineation in Primary Prostate Cancer: Intermodality and Intertracer Variability.

PURPOSE: To assess the intermodality and intertracer variability of gallium-68 (68Ga)- or fluorine-18 (18F)-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) and biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI)-based gross tumor volume (GTV) delineation for focal boosting in primary prostate cancer. METHODS: Nineteen prospectively enrolled patients with prostate cancer underwent a PSMA PET/MRI scan, divided into a 1:1 ratio between 68Ga-PSMA-11 and 18F-PSMA-1007, before radical prostatectomy (IWT140193). Four delineation teams performed manual contouring of the GTV based on bpMRI and PSMA PET imaging, separately. Index lesion coverage (overlap%) and interobserver variability were assessed. Furthermore, the distribution of the voxelwise normalized standardized uptake values (SUV%) was determined for the majority-voted (>50%) GTV (GTVmajority) and whole prostate gland to investigate intertracer variability. The median patientwise SUV% contrast ratio (SUV%-CR, calculated as median GTVmajority SUV% / median prostate gland without GTVmajority SUV%) was calculated according to the tracer used. RESULTS: A significant difference in overlap% favoring PSMA PET compared with bpMRI was found in the 18F subgroup (median, 63.0% vs 53.1%; P = .004) but was not present in the 68Ga subgroup (32.5% vs 50.6%; P = .100). Regarding interobserver variability, measured Sørensen-Dice coefficients (0.58 vs 0.72) and calculated mean distances to agreement (2.44 mm vs 1.22 mm) were statistically significantly lower and higher, respectively, for the 18F cohort compared with the 68Ga cohort. For the bpMRI-based delineations, the median Sørensen-Dice coefficient and mean distance to agreement were 0.63 and 1.76 mm, respectively. Median patientwise SUV%-CRs of 1.8 (interquartile range [IQR], 1.6-2.7) for 18F-PSMA and 3.3 (IQR, 2.7-5.9) for 68Ga-PSMA PET images were found. CONCLUSIONS: Both MRI and PSMA PET provided consistent intraprostatic GTV lesion detection. However, the PSMA tracer seems to have a major influence on the contour characteristics, owing to an apparent difference in SUV% distribution in the prostate gland.

Primary endpoint analysis of the multicentre phase II hypo-FLAME trial for intermediate and high risk prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Local recurrences after radiotherapy for prostate cancer (PCa) often originate at the location of the macroscopic tumour(s). Since PCa cells are known to be sensitive to high fraction doses, hypofractionated whole gland stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in conjunction with a simultaneous ablative microboost to the macroscopic tumour(s) within the prostate could be a way to reduce the risk of local failure. We investigated the safety of this treatment strategy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with intermediate or high risk PCa were enrolled in a prospective phase II trial, called hypo-FLAME. All patients were treated with extreme hypofractionated doses of 35 Gy in 5 weekly fractions to the whole prostate gland with an integrated boost up to 50 Gy to the multiparametric (mp) MRI-defined tumour(s). Treatment-related toxicity was measured using the CTCAE v4.0. The primary endpoint of the trial was treatment-related acute toxicity. RESULTS: Between April 2016 and December 2018, 100 men were treated in 4 academic centres. All patients were followed up for a minimum of 6 months. The median mean dose delivered to the visible tumour nodule(s) on mpMRI was 44.7 Gy in this trial. No grade ≥3 acute genitourinary (GU) or gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity was observed. Furthermore, 90 days after start of treatment, the cumulative acute grade 2 GU and GI toxicity rates were 34.0% and 5.0%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Simultaneous focal boosting to the macroscopic tumour(s) in addition to whole gland prostate SBRT is associated with acceptable acute GU and GI toxicity.

Knowledge-Based Assessment of Focal Dose Escalation Treatment Plans in Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: In a randomized focal dose escalation radiation therapy trial for prostate cancer (FLAME), up to 95 Gy was prescribed to the tumor in the dose-escalated arm, with 77 Gy to the entire prostate in both arms. As dose constraints to organs at risk had priority over dose escalation and suboptimal planning could occur, we investigated how well the dose to the tumor was boosted. We developed an anatomy-based prediction model to identify plans with suboptimal tumor dose and performed replanning to validate our model. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We derived dose-volume parameters from planned dose distributions of 539 FLAME trial patients in 4 institutions and compared them between both arms. In the dose-escalated arm, we determined overlap volume histograms and derived features representing patient anatomy. We predicted tumor D98% with a linear regression on anatomic features and performed replanning on 21 plans. RESULTS: In the dose-escalated arm, the median tumor D50% and D98% were 93.0 and 84.7 Gy, and 99% of the tumors had a dose escalation greater than 82.4 Gy (107% of 77 Gy). In both arms organs at risk constraints were met. Five out of 73 anatomic features were found to be predictive for tumor D98%. Median predicted tumor D98% was 4.4 Gy higher than planned D98%. Upon replanning, median tumor D98% increased by 3.0 Gy. A strong correlation between predicted increase in D98% and realized increase upon replanning was found (ρ = 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: Focal dose escalation in prostate cancer was feasible with a dose escalation to 99% of the tumors. Replanning resulted in an increased tumor dose that correlated well with the prediction model. The model was able to identify tumors on which a higher boost dose could be planned. The model has potential as a quality assessment tool in focal dose escalated treatment plans.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy with optional focal lesion ablative microboost in prostate cancer: Topical review and multicenter consensus.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer (PCa) is gaining interest by the recent publication of the first phase III trials on prostate SBRT and the promising results of many other phase II trials. Before long term results became available, the major concern for implementing SBRT in PCa in daily clinical practice was the potential risk of late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. A number of recently published trials, including late outcome and toxicity data, contributed to the growing evidence for implementation of SBRT for PCa in daily clinical practice. However, there exists substantial variability in delivering SBRT for PCa. The aim of this topical review is to present a number of prospective trials and retrospective analyses of SBRT in the treatment of PCa. We focus on the treatment strategies and techniques used in these trials. In addition, recent literature on a simultaneous integrated boost to the tumor lesion, which could create an additional value in the SBRT treatment of PCa, was described. Furthermore, we discuss the multicenter consensus of the FLAME consortium on SBRT for PCa with a focal boost to the macroscopic intraprostatic tumor nodule(s).

Planning feasibility of extremely hypofractionated prostate radiotherapy on a 1.5 T magnetic resonance imaging guided linear accelerator.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Recently, intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer patients have been treated in a multicenter phase II trial with extremely hypofractionated prostate radiotherapy (hypo-FLAME trial). The purpose of the current study was to investigate whether a 1.5 T magnetic resonance imaging guided linear accelerator (MRI-linac) could achieve complex dose distributions of a quality similar to conventional linac state-of-the-art prostate treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The clinically delivered treatment plans of 20 hypo-FLAME patients (volumetric modulated arc therapy, 10 MV, 5 mm leaf width) were included. Prescribed dose to the prostate was 5 × 7 Gy, with a focal tumor boost up to 5 × 10 Gy. MRI-linac treatment plans (intensity modulated radiotherapy, 7 MV, 7 mm leaf width, fixed collimator angle and 1.5 T magnetic field) were calculated. Dose distributions were compared. RESULTS: In both conventional and MRI-linac treatment plans, the V35Gy to the whole prostate was >99% in all patients. Mean dose to the gross tumor volume was 45 Gy for conventional and 44 Gy for MRI-linac plans, respectively. Organ at risk doses were met in the majority of plans, except for a rectal V35Gy constraint, which was exceeded in one patient, by 1 cc, for both modalities. The bladder V32Gy and V28Gy constraints were exceeded in two and one patient respectively, for both modalities. CONCLUSION: Planning of stereotactic radiotherapy with focal ablative boosting in prostate cancer on a high field MRI-linac is feasible with the current MRI-linac properties, without deterioration of plan quality compared to conventional treatments.

Cross-institutional knowledge-based planning (KBP) implementation and its performance comparison to Auto-Planning Engine (APE).

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To investigate (1) whether a plan library established at one institution can be applied for another institution's knowledge-based planning (KBP); (2) the performance of cross-institutional KBP compared to Auto-Planning Engine (APE). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Radboud University Medical Center (RUMC) provided 35 oropharyngeal cancer patients (68Gy to PTV68 and 50.3Gy to PTV50.3) with clinically-delivered and comparative APE plans. The Johns Hopkins University (JHU) contributed a three-dose-level plan library consisting of 179 clinically-delivered plans. MedStar Georgetown University Hospital (MGUH) contributed a KBP approach employing overlap-volume histogram (OVH-KBP), where the JHU library was used for guiding RUMC patients' KBP. Since clinical protocols adopted at RUMC and JHU are different and both approaches require protocol-specific planning parameters as initial input, 10 randomly selected patients from RUMC were set aside for deriving them. The finalized parameters were applied to the remaining 25 patients for OVH-KBP and APE plan generation. A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used for statistical comparison. RESULTS: PTV68 and PTV50.3's V95 in OVH-KBP and APE were similar (p>0.36). Cord's D0.1 cc in OVH-KBP was reduced by 5.1Gy (p=0.0001); doses to other organs were similar (p>0.2). CONCLUSION: APE and OVH-KBP's plan quality is comparable. Institutional-protocol differences can be addressed to allow cross-institutional library sharing.

Multi-institutional comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy vs. intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head-and-neck cancer: a planning study.

BACKGROUND: Compared to static beam Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT), the main advantage of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) is a shortened delivery time, which leads to improved patient comfort and possibly smaller intra-fraction movements. This study aims at a treatment planner-independent comparison of radiotherapy treatment planning of IMRT and VMAT for head-and-neck cancer performed by several institutes and based on the same CT- and contouring data. METHODS: Five institutes generated IMRT and VMAT plans for five oropharyngeal cancer patients using either Pinnacle3 or Oncentra Masterplan to be delivered on Elekta linear accelerators. RESULTS: Comparison of VMAT and IMRT plans within the same patient and institute showed significantly better sparing for almost all OARs with VMAT. The average mean dose to the parotid glands and oral cavity was reduced from 27.2 Gy and 39.4 Gy for IMRT to 25.0 Gy and 36.7 Gy for VMAT, respectively. The dose conformity at 95% of the prescribed dose for PTVboost and PTVtotal was 1.45 and 1.62 for IMRT and 1.37 and 1.50 for VMAT, respectively. The average effective delivery time was reduced from 13:15 min for IMRT to 5:54 min for VMAT. CONCLUSIONS: Independently of institution-specific optimization strategies, the quality of the VMAT plans including double arcs was superior to step-and-shoot IMRT plans including 5-9 beam ports, while the effective treatment delivery time was shortened by ~50% with VMAT.

Magnetic resonance lymphography-guided selective high-dose lymph node irradiation in prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate the feasibility of magnetic resonance lymphography (MRL) -guided delineation of a boost volume and an elective target volume for pelvic lymph node irradiation in patients with prostate cancer. The feasibility of irradiating these volumes with a high-dose boost to the MRL-positive lymph nodes in conjunction with irradiation of the prostate using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) was also investigated. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In 4 prostate cancer patients with a high risk of lymph node involvement but no enlarged lymph nodes on CT and/or MRI, MRL detected pathological lymph nodes in the pelvis. These lymph nodes were identified and delineated on a radiotherapy planning CT to create a boost volume. Based on the location of the MRL-positive lymph nodes, the standard elective pelvic target volume was individualized. An IMRT plan with a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) was created with dose prescriptions of 42 Gy to the pelvic target volume, a boost to 60 Gy to the MRL-positive lymph nodes, and 72 Gy to the prostate. RESULTS: All MRL-positive lymph nodes could be identified on the planning CT. This information could be used to delineate a boost volume and to individualize the pelvic target volume for elective irradiation. IMRT planning delivered highly acceptable radiotherapy plans with regard to the prescribed dose levels and the dose to the organs at risk (OARs). CONCLUSION: MRL can be used to select patients with limited lymph node involvement for pelvic radiotherapy. MRL-guided delineation of a boost volume and an elective pelvic target volume for selective high-dose lymph node irradiation with IMRT is feasible. Whether this approach will result in improved outcome for these patients needs to be investigated in further clinical studies.

Endorectal balloon reduces anorectal doses in post-prostatectomy intensity-modulated radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of an endorectal balloon (ERB) on anal wall (Awall) and rectal wall (Rwall) doses in high-dose post-prostatectomy intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: For 20 patients, referred for salvage IMRT after prostatectomy for prostate cancer, two planning CT-scans were performed: one with and one without an air-filled ERB. A planning target volume (PTV) was defined, using international guidelines. Furthermore, the Awall and Rwall were delineated. In both the scans, IMRT plans were generated with a prescribed dose of 70 Gy. The mean dose (D(mean)), maximum dose, minimum dose, and volumes exposed to doses ranging from ≥ 20 to ≥ 70 Gy (V(20)-V(70)) to the Awall and Rwall were calculated. Finally, inner Rwall surface areas exposed to doses ranging from ≥ 20 to ≥ 70 Gy (A(20)-A(70)) were calculated. Dose-parameters were compared between plans with and without ERB. RESULTS: All Awall parameters, except V(70), were significantly reduced by the ERB with an overall D(mean) reduction of 6 Gy. Absolute reductions in dose-volume parameters varied from 5% to 11%. Significantly reduced Rwall V(30), V(40), and A(40) were observed with ERB, irrespective of the target volume size. CONCLUSION: ERB application significantly reduces Awall and to a lesser degree Rwall doses in high-dose post-prostatectomy IMRT.

Optimal normal tissue sparing in craniospinal axis irradiation using IMRT with daily intrafractionally modulated junction(s).

PURPOSE: To develop a treatment technique for craniospinal irradiation using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with improved dose homogeneity at the field junction(s), increased target volume conformity, and minimized dose to the organs at risk (OARs). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Five patients with high-risk medulloblastoma underwent CT simulation in supine position. For each patient, an IMRT plan with daily intrafractionally modulated junction(s) was generated, as well as a treatment plan based on conventional three-dimensional planning (3DCRT). A dose of 39.6 Gy in 22 daily fractions of 1.8 Gy was prescribed. Dose-volume parameters for target volumes and OARs were compared for the two techniques. RESULTS: The maximum dose with IMRT was <107% in all patients. V<95 and V>107 were <1 cm3 for IMRT compared with 3-9 cm3 for the craniospinal and 26-43 cm3 for the spinal-spinal junction with 3DCRT. These observations corresponded with a lower homogeneity index and a higher conformity index for the spinal planning target volume with IMRT. IMRT provided considerable sparing of acute and late reacting tissues. V75 for the esophagus, gastroesophageal junction, and intestine was 81%, 81%, and 22% with 3DCRT versus 5%, 0%, and 1% with IMRT, respectively. V75 for the heart and thyroid was 42% and 32% vs. 0% with IMRT. CONCLUSION: IMRT with daily intrafractionally modulated junction results in a superior target coverage and junction homogeneity compared with 3DCRT. A significant dose reduction can be obtained for acute as well as late-reacting tissues.

A practical approach to assess clinical planning tradeoffs in the design of individualized IMRT treatment plans.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To investigate the tradeoffs between organ at risk sparing and tumour coverage for IMRT treatment of lung tumours, and to develop a tool for clinical use to graphically represent these tradeoffs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: For 5 patients with inoperable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) different IMRT plans were generated using a standard TPS. The plans were automatically generated for a range of IMRT settings (weights and dose levels of the objective functions) and were systematically evaluated, focusing on the tradeoffs between organ at risk (OAR) dose and target coverage. A method to analyze and visualize planning tradeoffs was developed and evaluated. RESULTS: Lung and oesophagus were identified as the critical organs at risk for NSCLC, the sparing of which strongly influences PTV coverage. Systematically analyzing the tradeoffs between these organs revealed that the sparing of these organs was approximately linearly related to PTV coverage parameters. Using this property, a tool was developed to graphically present the tradeoffs between the sparing of these organs at risk and the PTV coverage. The tool is an effective method to visualize the tradeoffs. CONCLUSIONS: A tool was developed to assist IMRT plan design and selection. The clear presentation of the tradeoffs between OAR dose and coverage facilitates the optimization process and offers additional information to the clinician for a patient specific choice of the optimal IMRT plan.

Anal wall sparing effect of an endorectal balloon in 3D conformal and intensity-modulated prostate radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To investigate the anal wall (Awall) sparing effect of an endorectal balloon (ERB) in 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 24 patients with localized prostate carcinoma, two planning CT-scans were performed: with and without ERB. A prostate planning target volume (PTV) was defined, and the Awall was delineated, using two different methods. Three-field and 4-field 3D-CRT plans, and IMRT plans were generated with a prescription dose of 78Gy. In 144 treatment plans, the minimum dose (D(min)), maximum dose (D(max)), and mean dose (D(mean)) to the Awall were calculated, as well as the Awall volumes exposed to doses ranging from >or=20Gy to >or=70Gy (V(20)-V(70), respectively). RESULTS: In the 3D-CRT plans, an ERB significantly reduced D(mean), D(max), and V(30)-V(70). For IMRT all investigated dose parameters were significantly reduced by the ERB. The absolute reduction of D(mean) was 12Gy in 3D-CRT and was 7.5Gy in IMRT for both methods of Awall delineation. CONCLUSIONS: Application of an ERB showed a significant Awall sparing effect in both 3D-CRT and IMRT. This may lead to reduced late anal toxicity in prostate radiotherapy.