Validation and reproducibility of in vivo dosimetry for pencil beam scanned FLASH proton treatment in mice.

PURPOSE: To investigate quality assurance (QA) techniques for in vivo dosimetry and establish its routine uses for proton FLASH small animal experiments with a saturated monitor chamber. METHODS AND MATERIALS: 227 mice were irradiated at FLASH or conventional (CONV) dose rates with a 250 MeV FLASH-capable proton beamline using pencil beam scanning to characterize the proton FLASH effect on abdominal irradiation and examining various endpoints. A 2D strip ionization chamber array (SICA) detector was positioned upstream of collimation and used for in vivo dose monitoring during irradiation. Before each irradiation series, SICA signal was correlated with the isocenter dose at each delivered dose rate. Dose, dose rate, and 2D dose distribution for each mouse were monitored with the SICA detector. RESULTS: Calibration curves between the upstream SICA detector signal and the delivered dose at isocenter had good linearity with minimal R2 values of 0.991 (FLASH) and 0.985 (CONV), and slopes were consistent for each modality. After reassigning mice, standard deviations were less than 1.85 % (FLASH) and 0.83 % (CONV) for all dose levels, with no individual subject dose falling outside a ±â€¯3.6 % range of the designated dose. FLASH fields had a field-averaged dose rate of 79.0 ±â€¯0.8 Gy/s and mean local average dose rate of 160.6 ±â€¯3.0 Gy/s. In vivo dosimetry allowed for the accurate detection of variation between the delivered and the planned dose. CONCLUSION: In vivo dosimetry benefits FLASH experiments through enabling real-time dose and dose rate monitoring allowing mouse cohort regrouping when beam fluctuation causes delivered dose to vary from planned dose.

PTCOG Gastrointestinal Subcommittee Lower Gastrointestinal Tract Malignancies Consensus Statement.

Purpose: Radiotherapy delivery in the definitive management of lower gastrointestinal (LGI) tract malignancies is associated with substantial risk of acute and late gastrointestinal (GI), genitourinary, dermatologic, and hematologic toxicities. Advanced radiation therapy techniques such as proton beam therapy (PBT) offer optimal dosimetric sparing of critical organs at risk, achieving a more favorable therapeutic ratio compared with photon therapy. Materials and Methods: The international Particle Therapy Cooperative Group GI Subcommittee conducted a systematic literature review, from which consensus recommendations were developed on the application of PBT for LGI malignancies. Results: Eleven recommendations on clinical indications for which PBT should be considered are presented with supporting literature, and each recommendation was assessed for level of evidence and strength of recommendation. Detailed technical guidelines pertaining to simulation, treatment planning and delivery, and image guidance are also provided. Conclusion: PBT may be of significant value in select patients with LGI malignancies. Additional clinical data are needed to further elucidate the potential benefits of PBT for patients with anal cancer and rectal cancer.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy versus conventional external beam radiotherapy for spinal metastases: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to compare SBRT and cEBRT for treating spinal metastases through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched up to 6 May 2023 for RCTs comparing SBRT and cEBRT for spinal metastases. Overall and complete pain response, local progression, overall survival, quality of life and adverse events were extracted. Data were pooled using random-effects models. Results were reported as risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes, and hazard ratios (HRs) for time-to-event outcomes, along with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 statistic. RESULTS: Three RCTs were identified involving 642 patients. No differences were seen in overall pain response comparing SBRT and cEBRT (RR at 3 months: 1.12, 95% CI, 0.74-1.70, p = 0.59; RR at 6 months: 1.29, 95% CI, 0.97-1.72, p = 0.08). Only two of three studies presented complete pain response data. SBRT demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in complete pain response compared to cEBRT (RR at 3 months: 2.52; 95% CI, 1.58-4.01; P < 0.0001; RR at 6 months: 2.48; 95% CI, 1.23-4.99; P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in local progression and overall survival. Adverse events were similar, except for any grade radiation dermatitis, which was significantly lower in SBRT arm (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.03-0.96, P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: SBRT is a safe treatment option for spine metastases. It may provide better complete pain response compared to cEBRT. Additional trials are needed to determine the potential benefits of SBRT in specific patient subsets.

Advanced pencil beam scanning Bragg peak FLASH-RT delivery technique can enhance lung cancer planning treatment outcomes compared to conventional multiple-energy proton PBS techniques.

PURPOSE: To investigate the dosimetric characteristics between an advanced proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) Bragg peak FLASH technique and conventional PBS planning technique in lung tumors. To evaluate the "FLASHness" of single-field in a multiple-field delivery scheme for a hypofractionation regimen and move a step forward to clinical application. METHODS: Single-energy PBS Bragg peak FLASH treatment plans were optimized based on a novel Bragg peak tracking technique to enable Bragg peaks to stop at the distal edge of the target. Inverse treatment planning using multiple-field optimization (MFO) can achieve sufficient FLASH dose rate and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT)-equivalent dosimetric quality. The dose rate of organs-at-risk (OARs) and the target were calculated under FLASH machine parameters. A group of 10 consecutive lung SBRT patients was optimized to 34 Gy/fraction using a standard treatment of PBS technique with multiple energy layers as references to the Bragg peak plans. The dosimetric quality was compared between Bragg peak FLASH and conventional plans based on RTOG0915 dose metrics. FLASH dose rate ratios (V40Gy/s) were calculated as a metric of the FLASH-sparing effect. RESULTS: For higher dose thresholds, the Bragg peak plans achieved greater V40Gy/s FLASH coverage for all major OARs. The V40Gy/s was close to 100% for all OARs when the dose thresholds were > 5 Gy for full plan and single beam evaluations. The less "FLASHness" region was associated with a low dose distribution, mainly occurring in the PBS field penumbra region. The conventional IMPT treatment plans yielded slightly superior target dose uniformity with a D2%(%) of 108.02% versus that of Bragg peak 300 MU plans of 111.81% (p < 0.01) and that of Bragg peak 1200 MU plans of 115.95% (p < 0.01). No significant difference in dose metrics was found between Bragg peak and IMPT treatment plans for the spinal cord, esophagus, heart, or lung-GTV (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Hypofractionated lung Bragg peak plans can maintain comparable plan quality to conventional PBS while achieving sufficient FLASH dose rate coverage for major OARs for each field under the multiple-field delivery scheme. The novel Bragg peak FLASH technique has the potential to enhance lung cancer planning treatment outcomes compared to standard PBS treatment techniques.

Optimal timing of radiotherapy in high risk prostate cancer: Do missed days matter?

INTRODUCTION: High-risk prostate cancer is associated with poorer overall survival (OS) and biochemical control compared to more favorable risk groups. External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) is widely used; however, outcomes data are limited with respect to time elapsed between diagnosis and initiation of EBRT. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried from 2004 to 2015 for patients diagnosed with high-risk adenocarcinoma of the prostate who received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and definitive EBRT. Logistic regression was utilized to determine covariates associated with missing EBRT treatments. OS was analyzed using multivariate cox proportional hazards models and propensity score matching. RESULTS: 9,610 patients met inclusion criteria with median follow-up of 40.6 months and median age of 72 years. Median PSA was 8.7 and median EBRT dose was 78 Gy. ADT was initiated at a median of 36 days and EBRT at a median of 63 days post-diagnosis. Median number of prolonged treatment days was 2.2. Black race (OR: 1.40; p < 0.01), treatment at a community clinic (OR: 1.32; p < 0.01), and living in an urban/densely populated area were associated with prolonged treatment. Time elapsed between ADT and EBRT > 74 days (HR: 1.20; p = 0.01) and prolonged treatment>3 days of EBRT (HR: 1.26; p = 0.005) were associated with an increased hazard of death. The 5-year OS was 79.6% and 82.9% for patients with prolonged treatment of 3 days or more of EBRT and those missing 3 days or less, respectively (p = 0.0006). CONCLUSION: In this hypothesis-generating study, prolonged treatment delays and missing three or more EBRT treatments was associated with poorer OS in patients with high-risk adenocarcinoma of the prostate.

Treatment interruptions affect biochemical failure rates in prostate cancer patients treated with proton beam therapy: Report from the multi-institutional proton collaborative group registry.

INTRODUCTION: To date, no studies examining the effect of treatment interruptions (TI) with proton beam therapy (PBT) have been published. The goal of our study was to determine the predictors of TI amongst patients with prostate cancer (PCa) treated with PBT and to determine whether TI are associated with biochemical failure (BF). We hypothesized that any correlation between TI and biochemical control would be more pronounced in high risk groups. METHODS: Data for 4278 patients with PCa was obtained from the prospectively collected Proton Collaborative Group (PCG) data registry. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis (MVA) was used to model possible predictors of BF. A subset analysis was performed for high risk patients treated with ADT and PBT. Finally, propensity score (PS) analysis was performed to account for any indication bias caused by lack of randomization. RESULTS: Total treatment duration (OR, 1.05 [1.04-1.06]; p < 0.001) increased the likelihood of TI on MVA. TI did not have a statistically significant correlation with BF (OR, 1.44 [0.86-2.39]; p = 0.162) amongst PS matched patients. However, on subset analyses of high risk group patients with PS matching, there was a trend towards worse BF in patients with TI (OR 3.85; 95%CI (0.96-15.44); p = 0.057). CONCLUSION: In the first analysis of its kind, the results suggest that TI in high risk PCa patients treated with PBT and ADT have worse BF rates. Interventions such as increased patient education, proper maintenance of proton facilities, and decreasing total treatment duration with alternative fractionation schedules may help avoid the unintended negative effects on tumor control due to TI. However, future analyses on a larger patient population is needed.